Most people assume that if someone causes severe emotional trauma, there must be a lawsuit for emotional distress. The reality is far more complicated. Indiana courts recognize claims for both Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”), but the requirements for each are intentionally demanding. Not every upsetting, traumatic, or emotionally devastating event will support recovery.
Understanding the distinction between these two claims is critical because they focus on different types of conduct and require different levels of proof.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress occurs when a person engages in conduct so extreme and outrageous that the law considers it intolerable in a civilized society. Indiana courts have adopted the following elements:
- Extreme and outrageous conduct;
- Intentional or reckless behavior;
- Causation; and
- Severe emotional distress. Int eh case of Lachenman v Stice the Indiana Court of Appeals discusses these elements.
The key issue in most cases is whether the conduct was truly “extreme and outrageous.”
It is not enough that someone was rude, negligent, inconsiderate, or even acted intentionally. Courts repeatedly emphasize that liability exists only when conduct goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and would lead an average member of the community to exclaim,
What Courts Look For
When evaluating an IIED claim, courts often ask:
- Was the conduct truly shocking?
- Did the defendant intend to cause emotional harm?
- Was the behavior more than merely negligent?
- Would ordinary members of society view the conduct as atrocious and intolerable?
These standards are intentionally difficult to satisfy because courts do not want every emotional injury to become a tort claim.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress is different. Instead of focusing upon intentional misconduct, NIED addresses emotional injuries arising from negligence.
Historically, Indiana courts were reluctant to recognize these claims because emotional injuries are often difficult to measure and verify. As a result, Indiana developed several limitations designed to distinguish legitimate emotional trauma from speculative claims. Lachenman v Stice discusses the history of these doctrines at length.
Today, most NIED claims fall into two primary categories.
The Modified Impact Rule
Under Indiana’s modified impact rule, a plaintiff generally must show:
- A direct impact resulting from another’s negligence;
- Direct involvement in the negligent event; and
- Serious emotional trauma that a reasonable person would be expected to suffer under the circumstances.
The Indiana Supreme Court stated in Shuamber v. Henderson that: “a plaintiff sustains a direct impact by the negligence of another and, by virtue of that direct involvement sustains an emotional trauma which is serious in nature and of a kind and extent normally expected to occur in a reasonable person[,] … such a plaintiff is entitled to maintain an action to recover for that emotional trauma without regard to whether the emotional trauma arises out of or accompanies any physical injury to the plaintiff.”
Then, later cases after Shuamber interpreted the modified impact rule to require a direct physical impact as a result of the emotional trauma.
The purpose of this rule is to ensure some objective connection between the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s emotional injury.
What Courts Consider
Courts often examine:
- Whether the plaintiff was physically affected in some manner;
- Whether the plaintiff was directly involved in the incident;
- Whether the emotional trauma was serious and genuine; and
- Whether the harm would be expected in a reasonable person.
The Bystander Rule
Indiana also recognizes the bystander rule.
A person who is not physically impacted may still recover when they witness or arrive immediately after a traumatic injury or death involving a close loved one. The rule was adopted to address situations where emotional trauma is so foreseeable and severe that recovery may be appropriate even without a direct physical impact.
Courts generally examine:
- Whether the plaintiff witnessed the event or came upon the scene immediately afterward;
- Whether the injured person was a close family member or someone with a comparable relationship;
- Whether the injury or death was severe; and
- Whether the emotional trauma was serious and foreseeable.
The Lachenman Example
Using Lachenman v Stice as an example, the plaintiff argued that watching her dog be attacked and ultimately die should support a negligent infliction claim. The Court disagreed. It held that she suffered no direct impact and did not fit within the bystander rule. While acknowledging that pets may be beloved family companions, the Court declined to extend Indiana’s bystander rule beyond close human relationships.
The case is a useful illustration because it shows that even where emotional harm is undeniable, recovery may still be unavailable if the claim does not fit within Indiana’s recognized legal frameworks.
The Key Difference
The easiest way to understand the distinction is this:
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress focuses primarily on the defendant’s conduct.
Was the behavior so outrageous and intolerable that society will impose liability?
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress focuses primarily on the plaintiff’s relationship to the event.
Was the plaintiff directly involved, physically impacted, or otherwise within a recognized category of foreseeable emotional injury?
A person may have a strong negligence claim but no IIED claim. Likewise, a person may have suffered profound emotional harm but still fail to satisfy Indiana’s impact or bystander requirements.
This blog was written by attorneys at Dixon & Moseley, P.C., who handle a wide variety of legal issues, be it criminal or civil in nature, throughout the state. It is written and posted for general educational purposes and is not to be construed as legal advice or solicitation for services. It is an advertisement.