Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

ACFE CFE-Law Exam - Topic 2 Question 55 Discussion

Which of the following is NOT an element generally required to establish a claim alleging the common law avil wrong for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
B) The victim was an employee of the defendant
A) The defendant acted intentionally or recklessly
C) The victim suffered distress as a result of the defendants conduct
D) The defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct

ACFE CFE-Law Exam - Topic 2 Question 55 Discussion

Actual exam question for ACFE's CFE-Law exam
Question #: 55
Topic #: 2
[All CFE-Law Questions]

Which of the following is NOT an element generally required to establish a claim alleging the common law avil wrong for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Theodora at Jan 26, 2025, 07:37 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CFE-Law Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Mirta
9 months ago
Yeah, emotional distress can happen to anyone, not just employees.
upvoted 0 times
...
Justine
9 months ago
I think all options are important, but B seems off.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kiley
10 months ago
Wait, so being an employee doesn't matter? That's surprising!
upvoted 0 times
...
Daryl
10 months ago
Totally agree, B is irrelevant here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brandee
10 months ago
B is definitely not required.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deandrea
10 months ago
I’m leaning towards B too, but I’m not 100% certain. It just seems like the other options are more directly related to the emotional distress itself.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ahmed
11 months ago
I feel like I've seen a similar question before, and it was about the outrageous conduct being necessary. So, could it be A or D?
upvoted 0 times
...
Chandra
11 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I remember something about the defendant needing to act intentionally or recklessly, so maybe that's not the right choice?
upvoted 0 times
...
India
11 months ago
I think the answer might be B, since being an employee isn't usually a requirement for emotional distress claims.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aracelis
11 months ago
Ah, I see now. The victim's employment is not a required element for intentional infliction of emotional distress. That must be the answer they're looking for. Glad I took the time to really analyze each option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rodney
11 months ago
I'm a little confused on this one. I know the elements involve intent, extreme conduct, and resulting distress, but I'm not sure if the victim's employment status is relevant. I'll have to think it through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Meghann
11 months ago
Okay, I've got this. The key elements are intentional or reckless conduct, extreme and outrageous behavior, the victim suffering distress, and a causal connection between the conduct and the distress. I'm pretty confident B is the right answer here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Felice
11 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The victim being an employee of the defendant doesn't seem like a necessary element, but I'll have to double-check that against the standard requirements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cecily
11 months ago
This looks like a tricky question on the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress. I'll need to carefully review the options and think through the key requirements for this tort.
upvoted 0 times
...
Myra
1 year ago
Wow, option B really takes the cake for the most irrelevant answer choice. I mean, who cares if the victim was the defendant's employee? That's not an essential element of the tort. This question is a real mind-bender, but I think I've got it figured out.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ernie
1 year ago
Ah, the old 'employee of the defendant' trick. Nice try, test writers, but I'm not falling for that one. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is all about the defendant's conduct, not the victim's job status.
upvoted 0 times
Willodean
1 year ago
C) The victim suffered distress as a result of the defendants conduct
upvoted 0 times
...
Stevie
1 year ago
B) The victim was an employee of the defendant
upvoted 0 times
...
Mitzie
1 year ago
A) The defendant acted intentionally or recklessly
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Mitzie
1 year ago
Seriously, who comes up with these weird answer choices? Being an employee of the defendant has nothing to do with intentional infliction of emotional distress. This exam is clearly testing our ability to spot the random outlier.
upvoted 0 times
Fletcher
1 year ago
C) The victim suffered distress as a result of the defendant's conduct
upvoted 0 times
...
Leonida
1 year ago
B) The victim was an employee of the defendant
upvoted 0 times
...
Ilda
1 year ago
A) The defendant acted intentionally or recklessly
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Gaynell
1 year ago
Well, option B is clearly the odd one out here. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is all about the defendant's actions, not the victim's employment status. I'd say that's a pretty straightforward answer.
upvoted 0 times
Felton
1 year ago
D) The defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct
upvoted 0 times
...
Jaclyn
1 year ago
C) The victim suffered distress as a result of the defendant's conduct
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashaunda
1 year ago
B) The victim was an employee of the defendant
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephaine
1 year ago
A) The defendant acted intentionally or recklessly
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Edelmira
1 year ago
B) The victim was an employee of the defendant? Huh, that's a bizarre requirement for intentional infliction of emotional distress. I thought it was all about the defendant's outrageous conduct, not their relationship to the victim.
upvoted 0 times
Emerson
1 year ago
D) The defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct
upvoted 0 times
...
Melodie
1 year ago
C) The victim suffered distress as a result of the defendant's conduct
upvoted 0 times
...
Kate
1 year ago
B) The victim was an employee of the defendant
upvoted 0 times
...
Willard
1 year ago
A) The defendant acted intentionally or recklessly
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Glenn
1 year ago
Hmm, that makes sense too. It's important for the victim to have suffered distress because of the defendant's actions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Frederick
1 year ago
I disagree, I believe the correct answer is B) The victim suffered distress as a result of the defendant's conduct.
upvoted 0 times
...
Glenn
1 year ago
I think the answer is B) The victim was an employee of the defendant.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel