Podcasts about intentional infliction

Session 1: Foundations of Tort Law Chapter 1: Introduction to Tort Law Tort law is a branch of civil law that addresses harm or injury caused by one party to another. Its primary goal is to provide remedies for the injured party and deter others from committing similar offenses. Key elements of tort law include duty, breach, causation, and damages. The chapter also explores the distinctions between intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability. Chapter 2: Intentional Torts Intentional torts involve deliberate actions that cause harm to another. Common examples include: Assault and Battery: Physical or verbal actions causing apprehension or harm. False Imprisonment: Restricting someone's movement without lawful justification. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Outrageous conduct causing severe emotional harm. Trespass to Land: Unauthorized entry onto another's property. Conversion: Interfering with someone's personal property. Each intentional tort requires proving intent, causation, and damages. Chapter 3: Negligence Negligence occurs when an individual fails to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another. The five key elements include: Duty of Care: The obligation to act reasonably to prevent harm. Breach of Duty: Failing to meet the standard of care. Causation: Connecting the breach to the harm (actual and proximate causation). Damages: Proving actual harm or injury. Defenses: Contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and assumption of risk. Session 2: Liability and Specialized Areas Chapter 4: Strict Liability Strict liability imposes responsibility without fault. Key areas include: Abnormally Dangerous Activities: High-risk activities like blasting or hazardous material transport. Product Liability: Holding manufacturers accountable for defective products. Animal Liability: Owners of wild animals or dangerous domestic animals are held strictly liable for harm caused. Chapter 5: Defamation Defamation protects reputation and involves false statements causing harm. Types include: Libel: Written or published defamatory statements. Slander: Spoken defamatory statements. Elements include false statements, publication, harm, and fault. Public figures must prove actual malice, while private individuals prove negligence. Defenses include truth, privilege, and consent. Chapter 6: Product Liability This chapter examines legal claims related to defective products. The three main types of defects are: Manufacturing Defects: Flaws during production. Design Defects: Unsafe product designs. Failure to Warn: Inadequate safety warnings. Legal theories include negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty. Session 3: Expanding Horizons in Tort Law Chapter 7: Nuisance Nuisance law addresses unreasonable interferences with property rights. Two primary types are: Private Nuisance: Interference with individual property use. Public Nuisance: Actions affecting the community's health, safety, or morals. Remedies include damages, injunctions, and abatement. Chapter 8: Economic Torts Economic torts focus on financial harm rather than physical or property damage. Key examples are: Interference with Contractual Relations: Intentionally causing a breach of contract. Fraud: Deceptive practices causing financial loss. Misrepresentation: Providing false information that leads to harm. Chapter 9: Defenses to Tort Claims Defenses mitigate or eliminate liability in tort claims. Common defenses include: Consent: The plaintiff agreed to the defendant's conduct. Self-Defense: Protecting oneself with reasonable force. Necessity: Actions taken to prevent greater harm. Statutory Privileges: Immunities provided by law. Chapter 10: Emerging Issues in Tort Law This chapter explores contemporary developments in tort law, including: Technological Advances: Liability for AI, autonomous vehicles, and data breaches. Environmental Torts: Addressing climate change and pollution. Public Health Crises: Legal implications of pandemics a

Session 1: Foundations of Tort Law Chapter 1: Introduction to Tort Law Tort law is a branch of civil law that addresses harm or injury caused by one party to another. Its primary goal is to provide remedies for the injured party and deter others from committing similar offenses. Key elements of tort law include duty, breach, causation, and damages. The chapter also explores the distinctions between intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability. Chapter 2: Intentional Torts Intentional torts involve deliberate actions that cause harm to another. Common examples include: ● Assault and Battery: Physical or verbal actions causing apprehension or harm. ● False Imprisonment: Restricting someone's movement without lawful justification. ● Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Outrageous conduct causing severe emotional harm. ● Trespass to Land: Unauthorized entry onto another's property. ● Conversion: Interfering with someone's personal property. Each intentional tort requires proving intent, causation, and damages. Chapter 3: Negligence Negligence occurs when an individual fails to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another. The five key elements include: 1. Duty of Care: The obligation to act reasonably to prevent harm. 2. Breach of Duty: Failing to meet the standard of care. 3. Causation: Connecting the breach to the harm (actual and proximate causation). 4. Damages: Proving actual harm or injury. 5. Defenses: Contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and assumption of risk.

Session 1: Foundations of Tort Law Chapter 1: Introduction to Tort Law Tort law is a branch of civil law that addresses harm or injury caused by one party to another. Its primary goal is to provide remedies for the injured party and deter others from committing similar offenses. Key elements of tort law include duty, breach, causation, and damages. The chapter also explores the distinctions between intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability. Chapter 2: Intentional Torts Intentional torts involve deliberate actions that cause harm to another. Common examples include: Assault and Battery: Physical or verbal actions causing apprehension or harm. False Imprisonment: Restricting someone's movement without lawful justification. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Outrageous conduct causing severe emotional harm. Trespass to Land: Unauthorized entry onto another's property. Conversion: Interfering with someone's personal property. Each intentional tort requires proving intent, causation, and damages. Chapter 3: Negligence Negligence occurs when an individual fails to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another. The five key elements include: Duty of Care: The obligation to act reasonably to prevent harm. Breach of Duty: Failing to meet the standard of care. Causation: Connecting the breach to the harm (actual and proximate causation). Damages: Proving actual harm or injury. Defenses: Contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and assumption of risk.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress I’m David Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana. Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics. In our last episode, we discussed the subject of negligent infliction of emotional distress. […] The post Ep 286 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress first appeared on Personal Injury Primer.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) Source: Excerpts from "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)" Main Themes: Definition and elements of IIED Examples of outrageous conduct Requirements of intent or recklessness Defenses against IIED claims Application of IIED in specific circumstances (public figures, workplace) Limitations and challenges of IIED claims Most Important Ideas/Facts: 1. Definition and Elements: IIED allows recovery for severe emotional suffering caused by outrageous and intentional conduct. Four elements must be proven: Intentional or reckless conduct: Aiming to cause harm or acting with disregard for the high probability of harm. "The defendant must have intended to cause emotional harm or known that emotional harm was substantially certain to result from their actions." Extreme and outrageous conduct: Behavior exceeding the bounds of decency tolerated by society. "The standard of outrageousness is high, and courts have generally restricted the application of IIED to situations that go beyond the usual indignities, annoyances, and stresses of everyday life." Causation: A direct link between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's emotional distress. "The causation element ensures that only those injuries which are directly traceable to the defendant's actions are compensable under IIED." Severe emotional distress: Distress that no reasonable person should be expected to endure. "The term 'severe' is defined as distress that no reasonable person should be expected to endure. It must be more than trivial, transient, or slight emotional upset." 2. Examples of Outrageous Conduct: Employer abuse (verbal abuse, threats, harassment) Discriminatory harassment Exploitation of known sensitivities (phobias, trauma) Abusive conduct by authority figures (police, employers, landlords) 3. Intent/Recklessness: Intentional: Defendant desired to cause emotional harm. Reckless: Defendant acted with substantial disregard for the risk of causing emotional distress. 4. Defenses: Conduct not extreme or outrageous Consent (rarely applicable) First Amendment concerns (public figures, public concern) Lack of causation Lack of severe emotional distress 5. Special Circumstances: Public Figures: Must prove "actual malice" (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth). Workplace: Often combined with harassment/discrimination claims. Statutory remedies may preempt IIED claims. 6. Limitations and Challenges: High burden of proof (outrageousness and severity) Stringent evidentiary requirements (medical records, expert testimony, lay testimony) Statute of limitations Key Takeaways: IIED is a powerful tool for addressing severe emotional harm caused by egregious behavior. Proving IIED requires a high standard of proof and compelling evidence. Courts carefully balance the need to protect individuals from emotional distress with the importance of free speech and preventing frivolous claims. This briefing doc provides a concise overview of the key aspects of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. For specific legal advice, consult with an attorney. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Use code EmilyBakerClass at https://www.GreenChef.com/emilybaker50 to get 50% off your first box, plus 20% off your next two months!Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @lumedeodorant and get 15% off with promo code LAWNERD at https://LumeDeodorant.com! #lumepod #adGo to https://shopify.com/lawnerd now to grow your business – no matter what stage you're in.Karen Read's attorneys filed their Opening Briefs to the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts. The prosecution's response is due by October 16th and then Read will have a chance to reply by October 25th. Oral Arguments will most likely be at the end of November 2024 to hopefully get a decision by December 2024. There is a high likelihood that the defense will ask for the retrial to be scheduled further out.The Baby Reindeer Civil Lawsuit has a trial date set for May 2025. Netflix has filed a request for Dismissal and Anti-SLAPP. Netflix provided a Declaration from Richard Gadd including many exhibits proving Fiona Harvey sent Richard Gadd harassing emails, text messages, voice mails, and also accusations of stalking a Member of Parliaments' wife.These exhibits show that Harvey did do the things detailed in the mini series but was not a "beat by beat" recount of what happened. The Judge made a ruling by denying the Anti-SLAPP and dismissed some of the causes of action from Fiona's case; only leaving the Defamation and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. The line in the Netflix show that said, “this is a true story” was false and can imply malice because it can lead the viewer to believe that all of the things that happened in the series were true when that is not the case. It is likely that the case will go to mediation and settle out of court.Netflix is being sued for defamation by John Wilson for the documentary: Operation Varsity Blues - The College Admissions Scandal. John Wilson had almost all of his convictions overturned on appeal and that was not included in the documentary. Netflix lost the motion to dismiss and will be moving forward with discovery.RESOURCESKaren Read - Affidavit of Juror Doe - https://www.youtube.com/live/3VgRq1V7Wb8?t=18884s The $170 Million Baby Reindeer Lawsuit - https://youtu.be/WJrHwK_48d4Buster Murdaugh Sues Netflix - https://youtu.be/Zan5PlYEeJAThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

Welcome to "The Legal Breakdown," where we focus on law school-style questions and deliver model answers to help you excel in your studies and beyond. Each episode, we present a challenging legal question, dissect its complexities, and provide a detailed model answer, guiding you through the reasoning process. Tort Law Exam Question: Jane and Bob are having a heated argument in a park. During the argument, Jane raises her fist and yells, "I'm going to punch you right now!" Bob, fearing imminent harm, steps back. At that moment, Jane's friend Mike, without permission, takes Bob's phone from a nearby bench and smashes it on the ground. Bob tries to leave the park, but Jane blocks his path and keeps him confined in the park for 20 minutes. Bob suffers severe emotional distress from the incident and subsequently files a lawsuit against Jane and Mike, claiming assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to chattels, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Bob has valid claims against Jane for assault, false imprisonment, and IIED, and against Mike for trespass to chattels. Model Answer: Assault: Jane's threat and her raised fist created reasonable apprehension of imminent harm for Bob, therefore, Jane is liable for assault. False Imprisonment: Jane intentionally confined Bob in the park for 20 minutes without lawful justification or consent, therefore, Jane is liable for false imprisonment. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): Jane's actions, including the threat of physical harm and the confinement, can be considered extreme and outrageous, therefore, Jane is liable for IIED. Trespass to Chattels: Mike took Bob's phone without permission and smashed it, causing physical damage and depriving Bob of its use, therefore, Mike is liable for trespass to chattels. Bob does not have a valid battery claim against Jane, as there was no actual physical contact. Property Law Exam Question: John decides to steal a valuable painting from a local art gallery. He plans the theft meticulously, intending to sell the painting on the black market. On the night of the theft, John breaks into the gallery and takes the painting, carefully avoiding security measures. While escaping, he hides the painting in his friend's car without his friend's knowledge. His friend, unaware of the theft, drives home with the painting in the trunk. Later, the police find the painting in the friend's car and arrest both John and his friend. Discuss the criminal liability of John and his friend under the principles of actus reus, mens rea, and parties to a crime. Include an analysis of whether John's friend can be held liable as a principal, accomplice, or accessory, and explain the distinction between real and personal property in this context. John is criminally liable for the theft of the painting due to the concurrence of his mens rea and actus reus. His friend is unlikely to be held liable as a principal or accomplice because he lacked both the actus reus and mens rea. The friend may be considered an accessory after the fact if it is proven he knowingly helped John evade detection. The painting, as personal property, falls under different legal rules than real property. Model Answer: John is criminally liable for the theft of the painting. His criminal intent (mens rea) and the actus reus, the physical act of breaking into the gallery and taking the painting, coincided, fulfilling the requirement for concurrence. John's friend is unlikely to be held liable as a principal or accomplice because he lacked both the actus reus and mens rea. The friend may be considered an accessory after the fact if it is proven he knowingly helped John evade detection. The painting is classified as personal property because it is a movable item not permanently attached to land. Constitutional Law Exam Question: Discuss the role of the system of checks and balances and federalism in preventing the concentration of power within the United States --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 2: Intentional Torts. Chapter 2 of the Tort Law Hornbook delves into the category of intentional torts, which involve deliberate actions that cause harm to others. The key intentional torts discussed include battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion. Battery: Defined as intentional and harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without consent. Key elements include intent, contact, and the harmful or offensive nature of the contact. Defenses include consent, self-defense, and defense of others. Assault: Involves creating a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact in another person. Key elements are intent, reasonable apprehension, and imminence. Defenses include consent, self-defense, and defense of others. False Imprisonment: Occurs when a person intentionally confines another within fixed boundaries without lawful justification and without consent. Key elements include intent, confinement, lack of consent, and the plaintiff's awareness or harm. Defenses include lawful authority, consent, and necessity. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): Involves extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress. Key elements include extreme and outrageous conduct, intent or recklessness, causation, and severe emotional distress. Defenses include lack of intent or recklessness, conduct not deemed extreme and outrageous, and the plaintiff not experiencing severe emotional distress. Trespass to Land: Occurs when a person intentionally enters or remains on another's property without permission or lawful justification. Key elements include intent, entry, and lack of consent. Defenses include consent, necessity, and privilege. Trespass to Chattels: Involves intentional interference with another's personal property, resulting in harm or loss of use. Key elements include intent, interference, and harm or deprivation. Defenses include consent, necessity, and privilege. Conversion: Defined as the intentional exercise of control over another's personal property that seriously interferes with the owner's rights. Key elements include intent, dominion or control, and serious interference. Defenses include consent, lawful authority, and necessity. These intentional torts address various forms of wrongful conduct, providing legal frameworks to protect individuals' rights and property from intentional harm. The chapter also highlights relevant defenses, offering a balanced approach to adjudicating claims and recognizing justified actions. In this chapter, we've explored the core concepts of intentional torts, which involve deliberate actions that cause harm or interfere with the rights of others. These torts include battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion. Each tort has specific elements that must be proven for a successful claim, and various defenses may be raised to counter these claims. Understanding these foundational aspects of intentional torts is essential for navigating the complexities of tort law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 2: Intentional Torts. Chapter 2 of the Tort Law Hornbook delves into the category of intentional torts, which involve deliberate actions that cause harm to others. The key intentional torts discussed include battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion. Battery: Defined as intentional and harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without consent. Key elements include intent, contact, and the harmful or offensive nature of the contact. Defenses include consent, self-defense, and defense of others. Assault: Involves creating a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact in another person. Key elements are intent, reasonable apprehension, and imminence. Defenses include consent, self-defense, and defense of others. False Imprisonment: Occurs when a person intentionally confines another within fixed boundaries without lawful justification and without consent. Key elements include intent, confinement, lack of consent, and the plaintiff's awareness or harm. Defenses include lawful authority, consent, and necessity. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): Involves extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress. Key elements include extreme and outrageous conduct, intent or recklessness, causation, and severe emotional distress. Defenses include lack of intent or recklessness, conduct not deemed extreme and outrageous, and the plaintiff not experiencing severe emotional distress. Trespass to Land: Occurs when a person intentionally enters or remains on another's property without permission or lawful justification. Key elements include intent, entry, and lack of consent. Defenses include consent, necessity, and privilege. Trespass to Chattels: Involves intentional interference with another's personal property, resulting in harm or loss of use. Key elements include intent, interference, and harm or deprivation. Defenses include consent, necessity, and privilege. Conversion: Defined as the intentional exercise of control over another's personal property that seriously interferes with the owner's rights. Key elements include intent, dominion or control, and serious interference. Defenses include consent, lawful authority, and necessity. These intentional torts address various forms of wrongful conduct, providing legal frameworks to protect individuals' rights and property from intentional harm. The chapter also highlights relevant defenses, offering a balanced approach to adjudicating claims and recognizing justified actions. In this chapter, we've explored the core concepts of intentional torts, which involve deliberate actions that cause harm or interfere with the rights of others. These torts include battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion. Each tort has specific elements that must be proven for a successful claim, and various defenses may be raised to counter these claims. Understanding these foundational aspects of intentional torts is essential for navigating the complexities of tort law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Introduction to Torts Definition and Purpose Definition of a Tort Purpose of Tort Law (compensation, deterrence, justice) Types of Torts Intentional Torts Assault and Battery Elements of Assault (intent, apprehension, imminent harm) Elements of Battery (intent, harmful or offensive contact) False Imprisonment Elements (intent, confinement, awareness or harm) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) Elements (intent or recklessness, extreme and outrageous conduct, causation, severe emotional distress) Trespass to Land Elements (intent, unauthorized entry, property) Trespass to Chattels and Conversion Trespass to Chattels (intent, interference, damage) Conversion (intent, substantial interference, ownership) Negligence Elements of Negligence Duty of Care Breach of Duty Causation (actual cause, proximate cause) Damages Defenses to Negligence Contributory Negligence Comparative Negligence Assumption of Risk Strict Liability Abnormally Dangerous Activities Definition and examples (explosives, hazardous materials) Animals Wild Animals (strict liability) Domestic Animals (liability based on known dangerous propensities) Product Liability Elements (defect, causation, damages) Types of Defects (manufacturing, design, warning) Defenses to Torts Defenses to Intentional Torts Consent Self-Defense Defense of Others Defense of Property Necessity (public and private) Defenses to Negligence Contributory Negligence Comparative Negligence (pure and modified) Assumption of Risk Damages in Tort Law Compensatory Damages Economic Damages (medical expenses, lost wages) Non-Economic Damages (pain and suffering, emotional distress) Punitive Damages Purpose and standards for awarding Factors considered (malicious, willful, or reckless conduct) Special Tort Doctrines Vicarious Liability Employer liability for employee actions (respondeat superior) Independent contractors Joint and Several Liability Definition and application Contribution and indemnity among tortfeasors Statutes of Limitations and Repose Definition and differences Application in tort cases --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Exploring Intentional Torts. Intentional torts are characterized by the defendant's deliberate actions that lead to harm or injury to the plaintiff. Unlike negligence, where the focus is on the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care, intentional torts require proof of intent. Let's delve into some key intentional torts: 1. Assault. Assault occurs when one person intentionally puts another in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. The key is the victim's reasonable fear. Example: If someone raises a fist and threatens to punch another person, putting them in fear of imminent harm, it constitutes assault. 2. Battery. Battery involves the intentional and harmful or offensive touching of another person without their consent. It's not the harm caused but the intentional act of touching that defines battery. Example: If someone intentionally punches another person, causing physical harm, it constitutes battery. 3. False Imprisonment. False imprisonment occurs when one person intentionally restricts another's freedom of movement within a bounded area without their consent. The victim must be aware of the confinement or harmed by it. Example: If a store employee wrongfully detains a shopper, suspecting them of theft without proper evidence, it constitutes false imprisonment. 4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. This tort involves intentional conduct that is extreme and outrageous, causing severe emotional distress to another person. Example: If someone engages in severe bullying or harassment, intentionally causing emotional harm, it may constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress. 5. Defamation. Defamation is the intentional publication of a false statement that harms the reputation of another person. It includes both written (libel) and spoken (slander) forms. Example: If someone spreads false rumors about another person, damaging their reputation, it constitutes defamation. 6. Invasion of Privacy. Invasion of privacy comprises several intentional torts, such as intrusion into seclusion, publication of private facts, false light, and appropriation of likeness. Example: If someone secretly records another person in their private space without consent, it constitutes invasion of privacy. 7. Trespass to Land. Trespass to land occurs when a person intentionally enters the land of another without permission. It covers physical entry or causing an object to enter the land. Example: If someone enters another person's property without permission, it constitutes trespass to land. 8. Trespass to Chattels and Conversion. These torts involve intentional interference with another person's personal property. Trespass to chattels is a lesser interference, while conversion is a substantial interference or wrongful possession. Example: If someone intentionally damages another person's car (trespass to chattels) or steals it (conversion), it constitutes these intentional torts. Key Elements of Intentional Torts. To succeed in an intentional tort claim, certain elements must be established: Intent: The defendant must have the intent to commit the act that resulted in harm. Intent can be specific, intending the actual consequences, or general, intending the act but not necessarily the harm. Causation: The defendant's intentional act must be the actual cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Harm: The plaintiff must have suffered harm or damages as a result of the defendant's intentional act. Defenses to Intentional Torts. Defendants in intentional tort cases have several defenses at their disposal: Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the defendant's actions, knowing the risks involved, it can serve as a complete defense. Example: In a case where participants in a contact sport agree to the physical nature of the game, the defense of consent might apply. Self-Defense: Individuals have the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves from an imminent threat. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Defining Intentional Torts. Intentional torts are civil wrongs where the defendant intentionally commits an act that results in harm to the plaintiff. Unlike negligence, where the focus is on the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care, intentional torts involve the defendant's deliberate actions. Types of Intentional Torts. Intentional torts cover a broad spectrum of wrongful acts. Let's explore some common types: Assault: Assault occurs when one person intentionally puts another in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. The key is the victim's reasonable fear. Battery: Battery involves the intentional and harmful or offensive touching of another person without their consent. It's not the harm caused but the intentional act of touching that defines battery. False Imprisonment: False imprisonment occurs when one person intentionally restricts another's freedom of movement within a bounded area without their consent. The victim must be aware of the confinement or harmed by it. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: This tort involves intentional conduct that is extreme and outrageous, causing severe emotional distress to another person. Defamation: Defamation is the intentional publication of a false statement that harms the reputation of another person. It includes both written (libel) and spoken (slander) forms. Invasion of Privacy: Invasion of privacy comprises several intentional torts, such as intrusion into seclusion, publication of private facts, false light, and appropriation of likeness. Trespass to Land: Trespass to land occurs when a person intentionally enters the land of another without permission. It covers physical entry or causing an object to enter the land. Trespass to Chattels and Conversion: These torts involve intentional interference with another person's personal property. Trespass to chattels is a lesser interference, while conversion is a substantial interference or wrongful possession. Elements of Intentional Torts. To succeed in an intentional tort claim, certain elements must be established, including: Intent: The defendant must have the intent to commit the act that resulted in harm. Intent can be specific, intending the actual consequences, or general, intending the act but not necessarily the harm. Causation: The defendant's intentional act must be the actual cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Harm: The plaintiff must have suffered harm or damages as a result of the defendant's intentional act. Defenses to Intentional Torts. Defendants in intentional tort cases have several defenses at their disposal: Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the defendant's actions, knowing the risks involved, it can serve as a complete defense. Self-Defense: Individuals have the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves from an imminent threat. Defense of Others: Similar to self-defense, a person may use reasonable force to protect another person who is in imminent danger. Defense of Property: Individuals have the right to use reasonable force to protect their property from being invaded or stolen. Privilege: Certain statements made in specific contexts, such as in courtrooms or legislative proceedings, are protected by privilege and are not subject to defamation claims. Case Example: Assault and Battery. Imagine a scenario where Person A threatens to punch Person B and then proceeds to strike them, causing physical harm. In this case: Assault: The threat by Person A to punch Person B puts Person B in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact. This constitutes assault. Battery: The intentional act of Person A striking Person B, causing physical harm, constitutes battery. The key is the intentional act of touching, regardless of the harm caused. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

We address the issues of the Jedi and Child Soldiers, whether Anakin committed Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress with Ahsoka's Final Lesson, Hera and disobeying lawful orders, whether there was a Duty to Rescue Ahsoka, and if riding a space whale would violate the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Support the showNo part of this recording should be considered legal advice.Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok @TheLegalGeeks

Use code LawNerd to get 20% off and Free Shipping. https://www.manscaped.comFind your forever pieces @jennikayne and get 15% off with promo code LAWNERD at jennikayne.com/home ! Get 20% OFF @honeylove with promo code LAWNERD at https://www.honeylove.com/ ! A year ago, I covered the Petito v. Laundrie Civil Lawsuit, where Gabby Petito's parents are suing Brian Laundrie's parents over statements made by their lawyer Stephen Bertolino before Gabby Petito's body was found. The Petito's are making claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress over the Laundries conduct. In the course of this civil litigation, attorney Bertolino has also been added to the lawsuit. In the current fight over discovery, we learn some shocking new details about a letter Roberta Laundrie wrote to her son Brian and was found in an envelope styled 'Burn After Reading.' Roberta Laundrie is seeking to have the court rule that the letter cannot be turned over to the Petito's and is not relevant and, therefore, not discoverable. This case is moving toward trial, and there is still a lot to go.Connect With Me. Get the Members Only ‘I Have Thoughts Podcast https://www.LawNerdsUnite.comJoin the Text Crew https://www.TextEmily.ComLooking for my YouTube videos? https//www.WatchEmily.comWant to connect with Emily More? https://www.Instagram.com/theemilydbaker I share things on Twitter too! https://www.twitter.com/theemilydbaker This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Chartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

     Slam the Gavel welcomes back Marineka Bowman and Nick Giles to the podcast. They were last on Season 3, Episode 159. We discussed several topics including the definition of a Kangaroo Court as well as what Family Court puts families through, using them as pawns for money, traumatizing children.     Also discussed was the subject of IIED. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. This is a civil tort from common law and is a gap filler tort. IIED is an acronym for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress sometimes called tort of outrage. There is also what is called negligent infliction of emotional distress or NIED. Sometimes emotional distress is caused unintentionally which is still at best negligence and should be held accountable.      Since IIED is a filler tort meaning it fills the gaps of other laws and claims. Some examples are defamation, psychological abuse/Parental Alienation, frivolous lawsuits, malicious prosecution and negligent misrepresentation.     Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) generally involves some kind of conduct that is so terrible that it causes severe emotional trauma to the victim. In such cases, the victim can recover damages from the person causing the emotional distress. Courts are more likely to allow recovery when the emotional distress is accompanied by some form of physical injury resulting from the defendant's conduct.     Marineka remains strong in her stance of not engaging with the court system. Nick Giles was excellent in explaining IIED and the dysfunctional court system.To Reach Marineka Bowman:  startpositive2019@yahoo.comTo Reach Nick Giles:  klaus.giles@gmail.com and on Facebook: TravelingMan32Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://beentheregotout.com/http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

Slam the Gavel welcomes back Marineka Bowman and Nick Giles to the podcast. They were last on Season 3, Episode 159. We discussed several topics including the definition of a Kangaroo Court as well as what Family Court puts families through, using them as pawns for money, traumatizing children. Also discussed was the subject of IIED. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. This is a civil tort from common law and is a gap filler tort. IIED is an acronym for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress sometimes called tort of outrage. There is also what is called negligent infliction of emotional distress or NIED. Sometimes emotional distress is caused unintentionally which is still at best negligence and should be held accountable. Since IIED is a filler tort meaning it fills the gaps of other laws and claims. Some examples are defamation, psychological abuse/Parental Alienation, frivolous lawsuits, malicious prosecution and negligent misrepresentation. Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) generally involves some kind of conduct that is so terrible that it causes severe emotional trauma to the victim. In such cases, the victim can recover damages from the person causing the emotional distress. Courts are more likely to allow recovery when the emotional distress is accompanied by some form of physical injury resulting from the defendant's conduct. Marineka remains strong in her stance of not engaging with the court system. Nick Giles was excellent in explaining IIED and the dysfunctional court system. To Reach Marineka Bowman: startpositive2019@yahoo.com To Reach Nick Giles: klaus.giles@gmail.com and on Facebook: TravelingMan32 Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri) http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/ Support the show Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri) http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/maryann-petri/support

  Slam the Gavel welcomes new guest, Marineka Bowman last on the podcast  Season #3, Episode #104. Nick Giles is on the podcast accompanying her.  On this update, Marineka tells viewers that a psychologist that is making breeches in confidentiality, is seeing only her daughter without Marineka or her father involved. The psychologist then reports back to the father and his attorney that the child has no interest in seeing her mother. Marineka knows she can't get a 'fair shake' in this Kangaroo Court with Judge Natalie Haskins as Haskins has a long track record for handling Marineka's divorce and all courtroom appearances. Nick Giles read off Marineka's last motion and response to the court which proved to be very interesting. Marineka is questioning the court's vindictiveness toward her and the relationship she has had with her daughter.BACKGROUND: Marineka is a wonderful Mother of a five year old daughter. Mother explained that her ex-husband left the house when their daughter was only two months old. However, she did not go to the courts looking for child support as she tried to work it out with him. There was barely a response.      Now, when her daughter was a happy three year old, the father came back into their lives  and went before the courts saying that he wanted to only see his daughter two hours a week. Judge Natalie Haskins made a comment that, 'it would make it harder for you in the future to get full custody if you do this.' But there really was no problem in obtaining custody for the father.     At present time, the Father has complete custody and when Marineka does see her daughter on a scheduled basis, her child's head is shaved as we'll as an eyebrow. There are alleged reports on child sexual abuse that have gone unnoticed from DFS (CPS). The school system is doing nothing to help her, even though they are mandated reporters.     To Reach Marineka Bowman:  startpositive2019@yahoo.comTo Reach Nick Giles:  klaus.giles@gmail.comSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://beentheregotout.com/http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

Slam the Gavel welcomes new guest, Marineka Bowman last on the podcast Season #3, Episode #104. Nick Giles is on the podcast accompanying her. On this update, Marineka tells viewers that a psychologist that is making breeches in confidentiality, is seeing only her daughter without Marineka or her father involved. The psychologist then reports back to the father and his attorney that the child has no interest in seeing her mother. Marineka knows she can't get a 'fair shake' in this Kangaroo Court with Judge Natalie Haskins as Haskins has a long track record for handling Marineka's divorce and all courtroom appearances. Nick Giles read off Marineka's last motion and response to the court which proved to be very interesting. Marineka is questioning the court's vindictiveness toward her and the relationship she has had with her daughter as the judge will not look at evidence. BACKGROUND: Marineka is a wonderful Mother of a five year old daughter. Mother explained that her ex-husband left the house when their daughter was only two months old. However, she did not go to the courts looking for child support as she tried to work it out with him. There was barely a response. Now, when her daughter was a happy three year old, the father came back into their lives and went before the courts saying that he wanted to only see his daughter two hours a week. Judge Natalie Haskins made a comment that, 'it would make it harder for you in the future to get full custody if you do this.' But there really was no problem in obtaining custody for the father. At present time, the Father has complete custody and when Marineka does see her daughter on a scheduled basis, her child's head is shaved as we'll as an eyebrow. There are alleged reports on child sexual abuse that have gone unnoticed from DFS (CPS). The school system is doing nothing to help her, even though they are mandated reporters. To Reach Marineka Bowman: startpositive2019@yahoo.com To Reach Nick Giles: klaus.giles@gmail.com Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri) http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/maryann-petri/support

It's a very special return episode: Natasha is back and it's her birthday! Head to our Instagram on March 22nd to wish Natasha a happy birthday.In this episode, Allegra gives an update on the Jen Shah trial, pending motions regarding Real Housewives of Salt Lake City and the Hulu Special, The Housewife & the Shah Shocker, and Stuart Smith's guilty plea.Natasha talks a bit about Supreme Court Justice nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson and what to expect during the confirmation hearings which begin this week.We've also added a new section "stupid legal headlines" and discuss a lawsuit for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress involving a surprise delivery of a chocolate phallus.  Please remember to follow us on Instagram @legally40ish

Metaverse Legal Group - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - Virtual Groping In this exciting episode of Litigation Whiteboard® Attorney Steve® discusses the metaverse and "sexual assaults" that have allegedly occurred in the virtual reality zone.  One question I pose is whether or not it is legal (meaning, is there any law prohibiting such digital conduct)?  One legal angle I explore is the tort of outrage (aka Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress).  Is this type of digital activity tortious?  Of course it will violate the community standards of gaming platforms such as Quivr and Horizon Worlds and others, but will a lawsuit be viable against either the platform (not able to provide adequate protections), or against the anonymous users (screenshots may help you locate them)?  These are new questions for a new digital age. Take a listen! Click here to watch my video on Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:  If you like this podcast of Vondran Legal Hour feel free to share it on your social media networks.            

Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED; sometimes called the tort of outrage) is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same. Rationale for classification. IIED was created in tort law to address a problem that would arise when applying the common law form of assault. The common law tort of assault did not allow for liability when a threat of battery was not imminent. A common case would be a future threat of harm that would not constitute common law assault but would nevertheless cause emotional harm to the recipient. IIED was created to guard against this kind of emotional abuse, thereby allowing a victim of emotional distress to receive compensation in situations where he or she would otherwise be barred from compensation under the common law form. According to the first doctrine articulated by common law courts, a plaintiff could not recover for physical injury from fright alone absent a physical impact from an external source ("shock without impact"), even if the fright was proven to have resulted from a defendant's negligence, with the case on point referring to the negligent operation of a railroad. Even with intentional conduct, absent material damage, claims for emotional harm were similarly barred. "Mental pain or anxiety, the law cannot value, and does not pretend to redress, when the unlawful act causes that alone. Though where a material damage occurs, and is connected with it, it is impossible a jury, in estimating it, should altogether overlook the feelings of the party interested." Courts had been reluctant to accept a tort for emotional harm for fear of opening a "wide door" to frivolous claims. A change first occurred in the Irish courts which repudiated the English railroad decision and recognized liability for "nervous shock" in the Byrne (1884) and Bell (1890) cases In England, the idea that physical/mental shock without impact from an external source should be a bar to recovery was first questioned at the Queen's Bench in Pugh v London etcetera, Railroad Co. In the following year, the Queen's Bench formally recognized the tort, for the first time, in the case of Wilkinson v Downton, although it was referred to as "intentional infliction of mental shock". Wilkinson has been subsequently approved by both the Court of Appeal (Janvier v Sweeney) and House of Lords (Wainwright v Home Office). Citing Pugh and the Irish courts as precedent, the Wilkinson court noted the willful nature of the act as a direct cause of the harm. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Today we take a look at the issue of surveillance of students in and by schools - Three areas of surveillance - In school - Physical and network surveillance - Online - Surveillance of social media activity - At home - Surveillance through school-issued equipment - What information is being collected and what is being done with it? - Center for Democracy and Technology study: - 86% of teachers reported that schools provided equipment to students, twice the pre-pandemic rate - 80% of teachers and 77% of students said that the schools used surveillance software - The more the devices were used, the more surveillance occurred - Disparate economic impact - Economically disadvantaged students more likely to need school provided equipment and thus be subject to more constant and intrusive surveillance - Varying degrees of transparency - Justifications - Are students paying attention? - Some systems allow teachers to view all the tabs opened by students - Are students accessing inappropriate content, either during class or outside of it? - Are students misbehaving (cyberbullying, etc.)? - Are students showing signs of mental illness or self-harm (depress, suicidal ideation, etc.)? - The pandemic has had a measurable impact on the mental health of children - Protection of school equipment - The Technology - Different installation protocols - Standalone software - Browser extensions - Raises specter of monitoring of private devices if browser is set to sync extensions - Real-time monitoring of web activity, emails, etc. by AI or human moderators - A growing number of software platforms - Bark - Gnosis IQ - Gaggle - GoGuardian - Lightspeed - Securly Classroom - Real-time access of web cams - Online classes - Private time - Educators Misconduct - Lurking or snooping on social media accounts - Web cam voyeurism - Implications - Training students to view surveillance by employers and governments as “normal” - Legal Issues - Invasion of Privacy and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - Federal and state wiretapping laws - Child Online Privacy Protection Act - Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act - Resources - #2021–10–11 US schools gave kids laptops during the pandemic. Then they spied on them https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/11/us-students-digital-surveillance-schools - #2021–10–07 Borrowed a School Laptop? Mind Your Open Tabs https://www.wired.com/story/borrowed-school-laptop-mind-open-tabs/ - #2021–10–04 Democratic Lawmakers Demand Student Surveillance Companies Outline Business Practices, Warn the Security Tools May Compound ‘Risk of Harm for Students' https://www.the74million.org/article/democratic-lawmakers-demand-student-surveillance-companies-outline-business-practices-warn-the-security-tools-may-compound-risk-of-harm-for-students/ - #2021–09–22 New Research Probes Surveillance of Students' Online Activities https://www.govtech.com/security/new-research-probes-surveillance-of-students-online-activities - #2021–04–02 Teachers Are Watching Students' Screens During Remote Learning. Is That Invasion of Privacy? https://www.edweek.org/technology/are-remote-classroom-management-tools-that-let-teachers-see-students-computer-screens-intrusive/2021/04 - #2019–12–05 Is Your School Spying on Your Child via Webcams? https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/is-your-school-spying-on-your-child-via-webcams - #2019–12–04 How To Know If Your School-Issued Laptop Has Spyware Installed https://helpdeskgeek.com/how-to/how-to-know-if-your-school-issued-laptop-has-spyware-installed/ - #2010–10–21 $610K Settlement in School Webcam Spy Case https://www.cbsnews.com/news/610k-settlement-in-school-webcam-spy-case/

Twitch's ban of Dr. Disrespect in the Summer of 2020, when he was then one of the platform's most popular streamers, has been a constant topic of debate and conversation in the gaming and game streaming industries. Now, that debate has changed as talk of lawsuits fill the air. Will Dr. Disrespect sue Twitch? Can he even survive dismissal? And on what grounds might such a lawsuit be premised? You can see the groundwork being laid, but it's a difficult road indeed...in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/I8FJcevnzqo #Twitch #Ban #DrDisrespect *** CHANNEL SUPPORT PATREON - https://www.patreon.com/VirtualLegality STREAMLABS - https://streamlabs.com/richardhoeg STORE - https://teespring.com/stores/hoeg-law-store *** CHAPTERS 00:00 Introduction 02:06 Disrespect Says He's Suing Twitch 07:48 Possible Legal Theories 17:15 Black Widows and Arbitration 23:32 Conclusion *** Discussed in this episode: "Twitch Bans Dr. Disrespect - A Lawyer's Take On What We Know (VL254)" YouTube Video - June 29, 2020 - Hoeg Law https://youtu.be/wfgiEiefZ2E "Dr. Disrespect Banned From Twitch: Doc's Statement And What We Know" Forbes - June 28, 2020 https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2020/06/28/statement-respond-why-dr-disrespect-banned-from-twitch-for-mysterious-reasons/?sh=5e8ed8652c0e "DrDisrespect FINALLY opens up about you know what." YouTube Video - August 24, 2021 - DrDisRespect https://youtu.be/PkqZhyukSW0 "Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Relations - Essential Factual Elements" California Jury Instructions - Justia https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/2200/2202/ "Negligent Interference With Prospective EconomicRelations" California Jury Instructions - Justia https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/2200/2204/ "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - EssentialFactual Elements" California Jury Instructions - Justia https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1600/1600/ "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - 'Outrageous Conduct' Defined" California Jury Instructions - Justia https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1600/1602/ "Negligence - Recovery of Damages for EmotionalDistress - No Physical Injury - Direct Victim - Essential Factual Elements" California Jury Instructions - Justia https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1600/1620/ "Contracts in Restraint of Trade" California Code 16600 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC§ionNum=16600. "Terms of Service" Twitch - Updated January 1, 2021 https://www.twitch.tv/p/en/legal/terms-of-service/ "Validity, irrevocability, and enforcement of agreements to arbitrate" 9 USC 2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9/2 "Scarlett Johansson Slams “Misogynistic” Disney Response As Mouse House Tries To Move ‘Black Widow' Suit Behind Closed Doors – Update" Deadline - August 21, 2021 https://deadline.com/2021/08/scalett-johansson-disney-lawsuit-black-widow-response-arbitration-1234819262/ Periwinkle v Walt Disney Defendant's Motion to Arbitrate - Filed August 20, 2021 https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/black-widow-disney-arbitrtion-motion.pdf "Arbitrability – Who Decides?" ABA Article - February 2019 https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications/committee_newsletters/bcl/2019/201902/fa_3/ *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com

In this video, we discuss the law regarding the intentional infliction of #EmotionalDistress in Indiana and answer the following questions: what constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress?, how is “extreme and outrageous conduct” determined in Indiana?, how does the court measure the amount of emotional distress in a claim?, and what damages are awarded in an emotional distress lawsuit? Read more in the article at: https://www.oflaherty-law.com/learn-about-law/filing-a-claim-for-intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress-in-indiana Enjoy Legal Consultations from the comfort of your home. With our attorneys able to do consultations over the phone or through a videoconferencing communications system like Zoom, our attorneys at #OFlahertyLaw are able to do free or paid consultations that fit into your schedule without the fear of not being able to socially distance yourself from others. For more information about our Social Distancing Practices, #LearnAboutLaw Articles, or the court updates due to COVID 19, please click here https://www.oflaherty-law.com/notice-on-the-coronavirus-oflaherty-law We know you may have more questions regarding the topic or topics that we just discussed. Just Leave a comment on this #LearnAboutLaw Video and the staff at #OFlahertyLaw will respond with the best way to contact us for further inquiries. If you would like to make an appointment with one of our Illinois, Iowa, or Indiana Attorneys after watching a #LearnAboutLaw Video, please call our scheduling team at #OFlahertyLaw so they can set one up for you. They can be reached at (630) 324-6666. If you are not able to call, you can go to our website at www.oflaherty-law.com to speak to one of our customer service representatives there. #OFlahertyLaw now serves over 105 counties in Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana with convenient offices in scattered throughout. To see all of our office locations, you can go to our website at https://www.oflaherty-law.com. Our Attorney's main focus has always been providing quality legal work, white glove customer service, and affordable rates in all of the areas that we practice. While our focus has always been Family Law, Probate, and Estate planning, we do have extremely seasoned and capable attorneys who practice in Guardianship Matters, Criminal Matters, Litigation, Business and Contract Law, Real Estate, Immigration, Bankruptcy (7 and 13), and Debt Resolutions. If you are looking to hire an attorney after watching a #LearnAboutLaw video, please give our scheduling office a call so that our intake team can schedule you a time to speak with an attorney. Our office number is (630) 324-6666. None of the content in this series is intended as paid legal advice. Subscribe to our channel for daily videos dedicated to law and business. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY4QhGg-zwgUIthoK3EdyjA

The return of Dr. Disrespect on YouTube Gaming has been a resounding success for the popular streamer, but has he recovered from what happened over the summer with Twitch? What effect could a "silent", unexplained ban from your business partner have on you, especially with tens of millions on the line even today? And just what legal theories *might* his team be lining up behind the scenes, through video revelations like the ones Dr. Disrespect has shared? Any emotional distress inflicted is always *unintentional*...in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/Y6rWQJ9bzZQ #Twitch #Ban #DrDisrespect *** Discussed in this episode: "Twitch Bans Dr. Disrespect - A Legal Discussion" YouTube Playlist - Hoeg Law https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy98pOuP1cC8o7nraoJEcmuG "Dr Disrespect - LIVE - Warzone Performance Center" YouTube Video - August 31, 2020 - DrDisRespect https://youtu.be/9WT6V8MeI9w "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" (Search for 1600) Judicial Council of California - Civil Jury Instructions https://www.justia.com/documents/trials-litigation-caci.pdf Twitch Terms of Service Last Updated - August 10, 2020 https://www.twitch.tv/p/legal/terms-of-service/ "Judicial Council" California Courts Website https://www.courts.ca.gov/policyadmin-jc.htm *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com Blog: hoeglaw.wordpress.com

Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED; sometimes called the tort of outrage) is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

When Albert Snyder arrived for the funeral service of his son Matthew, a young Marine who died in the Iraq War, he was surprised by the noise and chaos that greeted him. Seven members of the Westboro Baptist Church—which believes that U.S. military casualties are a result of God's anger at an America that embraces sin—were picketing the funeral, holding signs with messages like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." Snyder sued Westboro for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and the Supreme Court had to decide: Does the First Amendment protect hurtful speech directed at a private citizen? If you love Unprecedented, you can support the show and more great podcasts from WAMU by heading to wamu.org/donate.

We discuss when punitive damages (especially in Connecticut) aren’t really so punitive, as well as damages for Bystander Emotional Distress (completing our trilogy of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and now Bystander Emotional Distress. Listener email included answers to: "When my property is damaged, who gets the insurance proceeds, me or the bank holding my mortgage?" and (from a bunch of guys hanging out and watching the Bruins): "Is there really such a thing as a Citizen’s Arrest?"

We visited the real estate world and talked about prepayment penalties on mortgage payoffs and when they’re not legal. We also touched upon joint bank accounts and discussed whose money it really is in those accounts. Additional topics included Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and its cousin, Negligent infliction of emotional distress; the legal liability of the keeper of domestic animals (excluding dogs); and whether a property owner is liable if a trespasser trips and hurts himself/herself on the property.

When do words constitute an assault? When can they constitute Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED). Find out how "mere words" are regarded for both of these torts in Audio Law's coverage of Cullision v. Medley (1991).

IIED is the Intentional Infliction of severe Emotional Distress (subjective) by relatively extreme and outrageous conduct which actually causes Severe Emotional Distress (objective). Can an insult cause severe emotional distress? Hear about the court's decision regarding IIED in Slocum v. Food Fair Stores, Inc.