iied claim in Pennsylvania

2019"The conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society." Hoy v. Angelone, 554 Pa. 134, 151 , 720 A.2d 745, 754 (1998) (quoting Buczek v. A'rst National Bank of Mifflintown, 366 Pa.Super. 551, 558 , 531 A.2d 1122, 1125 (1987)). --------------------------- - -- Here, Plaintiff fails to properly allege an IIED claim.

2019"The conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society." Hoy v. Angelone, 554 Pa. 134, 151 , 720 A.2d 745, 754 (1998) (quoting Buczek v. A'rst National Bank of Mifflintown, 366 Pa.Super. 551, 558 , 531 A.2d 1122, 1125 (1987)). --------------------------- - -- Here, Plaintiff fails to properly allege an IIED claim.

2025“For an IIED claim to survive a preliminary objection, a court must determine, as a matter of law, whether there is sufficient evidence for reasonable persons to find extreme or outrageous conduct.” Jordan v. Pennsylvania State Univ., 276 A.3d 751, 775 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2025“For an IIED claim to survive a preliminary objection, a court must determine, as a matter of law, whether there is sufficient evidence for reasonable persons to find extreme or outrageous conduct.” Jordan v. Pennsylvania State Univ., 276 A.3d 751, 775 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2022“The gravamen of the tort of [IIED] is outrageous conduct on the part of the tortfeasor.” Kazatsky v. King David Mem’l Park, Inc., 527 A.2d 988, 991 (Pa. 1987).

2022“The gravamen of the tort of [IIED] is outrageous conduct on the part of the tortfeasor.” Kazatsky v. King David Mem’l Park, Inc., 527 A.2d 988, 991 (Pa. 1987).

2019"The conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society." Hoy v. Angelone, 554 Pa. 134, 151 , 720 A.2d 745, 754 (1998) (quoting Buczek v. A'rst National Bank of Mifflintown, 366 Pa.Super. 551, 558 , 531 A.2d 1122, 1125 (1987)). --------------------------- - -- Here, Plaintiff fails to properly allege an IIED claim.

2019"The conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society." Hoy v. Angelone, 554 Pa. 134, 151 , 720 A.2d 745, 754 (1998) (quoting Buczek v. A'rst National Bank of Mifflintown, 366 Pa.Super. 551, 558 , 531 A.2d 1122, 1125 (1987)). --------------------------- - -- Here, Plaintiff fails to properly allege an IIED claim.

2019McClease , 226 F.Supp.2d at 702-03 (emphasis added).

2019McClease , 226 F.Supp.2d at 702-03 (emphasis added).

2018See Rolla v. Westmoreland Health Sys., 651 A.2d 160, 161-63 (Pa. Super. 1994) (appeal from order granting appellees’ preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and dismissing with prejudice appellant’s complaint, including claim for emotional distress; appellant asserted that emotional harm is just as damaging as physical harm and contended that “in the area of damages, it is believed that recent United States Supreme Court cases in the area of discrimination establish that physical harm is not necessary to have occurred”; this Court disagreed, holding that, for IIED, plaintiffs must a

2018See Rolla v. Westmoreland Health Sys., 651 A.2d 160, 161-63 (Pa. Super. 1994) (appeal from order granting appellees’ preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and dismissing with prejudice appellant’s complaint, including claim for emotional distress; appellant asserted that emotional harm is just as damaging as physical harm and contended that “in the area of damages, it is believed that recent United States Supreme Court cases in the area of discrimination establish that physical harm is not necessary to have occurred”; this Court disagreed, holding that, for IIED, plaintiffs must a

2018See Rolla v. Westmoreland Health Sys., 651 A.2d 160, 161-63 (Pa. Super. 1994) (appeal from order granting appellees’ preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and dismissing with prejudice appellant’s complaint, including claim for emotional distress; appellant asserted that emotional harm is just as damaging as physical harm and contended that “in the area of damages, it is believed that recent United States Supreme Court cases in the area of discrimination establish that physical harm is not necessary to have occurred”; this Court disagreed, holding that, for IIED, plaintiffs must a

2018See Rolla v. Westmoreland Health Sys., 651 A.2d 160, 161-63 (Pa. Super. 1994) (appeal from order granting appellees’ preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and dismissing with prejudice appellant’s complaint, including claim for emotional distress; appellant asserted that emotional harm is just as damaging as physical harm and contended that “in the area of damages, it is believed that recent United States Supreme Court cases in the area of discrimination establish that physical harm is not necessary to have occurred”; this Court disagreed, holding that, for IIED, plaintiffs must a

2016College of Optometry, 601 F.Supp. 1151, 1155 (E.D.

2016College of Optometry, 601 F.Supp. 1151, 1155 (E.D.

2016See Fewell v. Besner, 444 Pa.Super. 559 , 664 A.2d 577, 582 (1995) (asserting that, under Kazatsky, "[a] plaintiff must also show physical injury or harm in order to sustain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress”); Johnson v. Caparelli, 425 Pa.Super. 404 , 625 A.2d 668, 671 (1993) (discussing the requirements for a claim of IIED under section 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and stating "[t]he Supreme Court [in Kazatsky\ has further added the requirement of physical injury or harm in the event that § 46 is to be adopted”); Kelly v. Resource Housing of Americ

2016See Fewell v. Besner, 444 Pa.Super. 559 , 664 A.2d 577, 582 (1995) (asserting that, under Kazatsky, "[a] plaintiff must also show physical injury or harm in order to sustain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress”); Johnson v. Caparelli, 425 Pa.Super. 404 , 625 A.2d 668, 671 (1993) (discussing the requirements for a claim of IIED under section 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and stating "[t]he Supreme Court [in Kazatsky\ has further added the requirement of physical injury or harm in the event that § 46 is to be adopted”); Kelly v. Resource Housing of Americ

2016To succeed on an IIED claim: “(1) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (2) it must be intentional or reckless; (3) it must cause emotional distress; [and] (4) that distress must be severe.” Hoy v. Angelone, 691 A.2d 476, 482 (Pa. Super. 1997), citing Hooten v Penna.

2016To succeed on an IIED claim: “(1) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (2) it must be intentional or reckless; (3) it must cause emotional distress; [and] (4) that distress must be severe.” Hoy v. Angelone, 691 A.2d 476, 482 (Pa. Super. 1997), citing Hooten v Penna.

2016See Fewell v. Besner, 444 Pa.Super. 559 , 664 A.2d 577, 582 (1995) (asserting that, under Kazatsky, "[a] plaintiff must also show physical injury or harm in order to sustain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress”); Johnson v. Caparelli, 425 Pa.Super. 404 , 625 A.2d 668, 671 (1993) (discussing the requirements for a claim of IIED under section 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and stating "[t]he Supreme Court [in Kazatsky\ has further added the requirement of physical injury or harm in the event that § 46 is to be adopted”); Kelly v. Resource Housing of Americ

2016See Fewell v. Besner, 444 Pa.Super. 559 , 664 A.2d 577, 582 (1995) (asserting that, under Kazatsky, "[a] plaintiff must also show physical injury or harm in order to sustain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress”); Johnson v. Caparelli, 425 Pa.Super. 404 , 625 A.2d 668, 671 (1993) (discussing the requirements for a claim of IIED under section 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and stating "[t]he Supreme Court [in Kazatsky\ has further added the requirement of physical injury or harm in the event that § 46 is to be adopted”); Kelly v. Resource Housing of Americ

2016See Fewell v. Besner, 444 Pa.Super. 559 , 664 A.2d 577, 582 (1995) (asserting that, under Kazatsky, "[a] plaintiff must also show physical injury or harm in order to sustain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress”); Johnson v. Caparelli, 425 Pa.Super. 404 , 625 A.2d 668, 671 (1993) (discussing the requirements for a claim of IIED under section 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and stating "[t]he Supreme Court [in Kazatsky\ has further added the requirement of physical injury or harm in the event that § 46 is to be adopted”); Kelly v. Resource Housing of Americ

2016See Fewell v. Besner, 444 Pa.Super. 559 , 664 A.2d 577, 582 (1995) (asserting that, under Kazatsky, "[a] plaintiff must also show physical injury or harm in order to sustain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress”); Johnson v. Caparelli, 425 Pa.Super. 404 , 625 A.2d 668, 671 (1993) (discussing the requirements for a claim of IIED under section 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and stating "[t]he Supreme Court [in Kazatsky\ has further added the requirement of physical injury or harm in the event that § 46 is to be adopted”); Kelly v. Resource Housing of Americ

2016See Fewell v. Besner, 444 Pa.Super. 559 , 664 A.2d 577, 582 (1995) (asserting that, under Kazatsky, "[a] plaintiff must also show physical injury or harm in order to sustain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress”); Johnson v. Caparelli, 425 Pa.Super. 404 , 625 A.2d 668, 671 (1993) (discussing the requirements for a claim of IIED under section 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and stating "[t]he Supreme Court [in Kazatsky\ has further added the requirement of physical injury or harm in the event that § 46 is to be adopted”); Kelly v. Resource Housing of Americ

2016See Fewell v. Besner, 444 Pa.Super. 559 , 664 A.2d 577, 582 (1995) (asserting that, under Kazatsky, "[a] plaintiff must also show physical injury or harm in order to sustain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress”); Johnson v. Caparelli, 425 Pa.Super. 404 , 625 A.2d 668, 671 (1993) (discussing the requirements for a claim of IIED under section 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and stating "[t]he Supreme Court [in Kazatsky\ has further added the requirement of physical injury or harm in the event that § 46 is to be adopted”); Kelly v. Resource Housing of Americ

2012The result in Toney v. Chester County Hosp., 961 A.2d 192, 198 (Pa.Super.2008) (era banc), order aff'd by equally divided court, 36 A.3d 83 (Pa.2011), which dealt with an NIED claim, does not change our conclusion that witnessing the event is required for an IIED claim, as per the Restatement text above.

2012The result in Toney v. Chester County Hosp., 961 A.2d 192, 198 (Pa.Super.2008) (era banc), order aff'd by equally divided court, 36 A.3d 83 (Pa.2011), which dealt with an NIED claim, does not change our conclusion that witnessing the event is required for an IIED claim, as per the Restatement text above.

2007Hoy v. Angelone, 554 Pa. 134 , 720 A.2d 745, 753-754 (1998) (internal citation omitted), quoting in part Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress, cmt. d; Daughen v. Fox, 372 Pa.Super. 405 , 539 A.2d 858, 861 (1988). ¶ 39 ' Appellant’s amended complaint demonstrates that the crux of her IIED claim is based on the premise that appellees “intentionally and wrongly targeted and accused [appellant] of violations of the college’s honor code,” despite their knowledge of the falsity of these allegations, and that Allegheny and Professor Nelson acted to

2007Hoy v. Angelone, 554 Pa. 134 , 720 A.2d 745, 753-754 (1998) (internal citation omitted), quoting in part Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress, cmt. d; Daughen v. Fox, 372 Pa.Super. 405 , 539 A.2d 858, 861 (1988). ¶ 39 ' Appellant’s amended complaint demonstrates that the crux of her IIED claim is based on the premise that appellees “intentionally and wrongly targeted and accused [appellant] of violations of the college’s honor code,” despite their knowledge of the falsity of these allegations, and that Allegheny and Professor Nelson acted to

2004See e.g., Papieves v. Lawrence, 437 Pa. 373 , 263 A.2d 118 (1970) (defendant, after striking and killing plaintiff’s son with an automobile, and after failing to notify authorities or seek medical assistance, buried dead body in a field where it was discovered two months later and returned to the parents); Banyas v. Lower Bucks Hospital, 293 Pa. Super. 122 , 437 A.2d 1236 (1981) (defendants intentionally fabricated records to suggest that plaintiff had killed a third party and such fraud led to plaintiff being indicted); Chuy v. Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, 595 F.2d 1265 (3d Cir. 1979) (

2004See e.g., Papieves v. Lawrence, 437 Pa. 373 , 263 A.2d 118 (1970) (defendant, after striking and killing plaintiff’s son with an automobile, and after failing to notify authorities or seek medical assistance, buried dead body in a field where it was discovered two months later and returned to the parents); Banyas v. Lower Bucks Hospital, 293 Pa. Super. 122 , 437 A.2d 1236 (1981) (defendants intentionally fabricated records to suggest that plaintiff had killed a third party and such fraud led to plaintiff being indicted); Chuy v. Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, 595 F.2d 1265 (3d Cir. 1979) (