Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Introduction
Erin Greenwood, a teacher at Sylvan Preparatory school wants to file a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress owing to the school conduct of an unannounced bomb threat drill. An analysis of the case suggests that there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the conduct of an unannounced bomb threat drill by Sylvan Preparatory School constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Statement of Facts
Sylvan Preparatory school’s principal sent an email memo at the beginning of December 2022 to stakeholders indicating that the institution would be conducting security drills because of increasing school shootings. In line with this, the school conducted an unannounced bomb threat evacuation drill on January 6, 2023. Erin Greenwood was unable to open the classroom door leading outside or the exit door and yelled in panic while trying to open the door for ten minutes. When the door was eventually opened, she fainted for a few seconds. As some books fell on her feet, she went to a medical care clinic where the doctor prescribed some medication to calm her down. She then consulted a general practitioner two days later confiding that the drill had awakened her past traumatic experience at the Boston marathon bombing where she was one of the spectators. She took a short-term disability leave and is considering filing a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Argument
There is no adequate evidence to support the claim that the conduct of an unannounced bomb threat drill by Sylvan Preparatory School constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress
Extreme and Outrageous
The major argument that the plaintiff would provide to the court is that the defendant's decision to conduct an unannounced drill that simulated a real bomb threat without providing the client with adequate preparation or warning could have been considered extreme and outrageous. However, the court will argue that the unannounced bomb threat drill cannot be extreme and outrageous conduct. The court states that conduct is considered to be “extreme and outrageous” in the instances where one would describe the behavior to go beyond the limits of human decency and should be considered to be intolerable within a civilized community. To this end, an unannounced bomb drill in a public organization cannot be extreme and outrageous as it is within the bounds of human decency.
In the same vein, the ruling in Whelan v. Whelan contends that liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress can only be applied in instances where the plaintiff proves that the defendant engages in conduct “exceeding all bounds usually tolerated by decent society, of a nature which is especially calculated to cause, and does cause, mental distress of a very serious kind.” In the current case, Greenwood cannot prove that the school's conduct exceeds the bounds of human decency. To this end, society expects that schools will implement measures that are intended to ensure the safety of learners. An unannounced bomb drill is ...