One can often sue another for emotional injuries caused by outrageous conduct. In addition to being called “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” this tort is often called, in shorter form, the tort of “outrage.” Generally, someone commits the tort of outrage or intentional infliction of emotional distress, when they do something which is so outrageous that it is viewed as totally unacceptable in society and that behavior causes emotional or psychological injury to someone else.
Here’s a real example of this tort from a case I once read. A lady had a miscarriage in a hospital. Later, after she had been released from the hospital, she returned to pick up some belongings that the hospital had put in storage for her when she was admitted. She waited at the nurses’ desk while an employee of the hospital went to get her things. When the employee came back, she handed the woman a few personal items, as well as a glass jar filled with clear preservative liquid and the miscarried fetus.
This caused the woman to suffer severe emotional distress which was bad enough that she needed significant psychiatric treatment. In other words, her mental distress went beyond just being upset or sad. She suffered an extreme emotional or psychological, injury.
Understand the difference here. One cannot usually sue a store clerk for being rude or even calling you an unpleasant name. The behavior of the other person must reach the level of totally unacceptable and outrageous by society’s standards and you must be so disturbed by it that you suffer an emotional injury generally that it is so bad that you require psychological treatment. In other words, someone may commit outrageous conduct, but if it does not really harm you you get over it then you cannot reasonably sue them.
Toxic torts are similar to product liability. Toxic torts are injuries caused by the negligent release of toxins into the air or water. For example, if there is an accident at a chemical factory and chemicals are released into the air or water and people are injured, this is a “toxic tort.” The chemical company can be sued for its negligence in releasing the toxin and causing injuries, much like in a product liability case a car manufacturer can be sued for injuries caused by a car design that is unsafe. Also, a toxic tort does not have to involve a chemical company, but rather can be committed by anyone who negligently (or intentionally) releases toxins.
Injuries caused by food poisoning are also essentially another type of product liability.
If you are injured as a result of ingesting contaminated food or drink, then you may sue the manufacturer or distributor of the food (if packaged food) or the restaurant (if contaminated by the restaurant) or both (if a restaurant serves contaminated packaged food). Often the big problem with food poisoning cases is proof. If several people get the same sickness and they only have one source of food in common, then a case can usually be proved by process of elimination.
However, many food poisonings are isolated instances where only one person gets sick and the source cannot be found perhaps it came from the one piece of chicken that did not get fully cooked, when all the rest did. Further, because most people eat and drink several times per day, it can be very difficult or perhaps even impossible to establish evidence of the source of the contamination.
So if you are in a restaurant and you are served something that does not seem right or does not taste right or is an undercooked meat that should not be undercooked such as chicken, do not eat it.
If you already started to eat it, make sure you keep a sample because if you get sick, you will want to have a sample for testing. Also demand that the restaurant preserve the remainder. And make sure you put what you kept in the refrigerator or freezer to preserve it. Keep in mind that issues will be raised about the authenticity of the sample you kept and whether it was properly preserved. However, having a sample that is challenged by the defendant is better than not keeping a sample at all.
If you are particularly concerned, consider taking a sample to your local health department.
So-called “Good Samaritan” statutes protect certain people from being sued for causing injuries in some situations even though the injuries were negligently caused by them. The most common application of these laws involves the rendering of first aid in an emergency situation.
For example, if someone gives aid to someone who is choking or CPR to someone who has collapsed and causes injuries the process of rendering the aid, they cannot be sued for that injury, even if it was caused by negligence.
The protection will usually only apply if the person performing the first aid is at least minimally qualified to perform the aid. For example, if someone has not had CPR training and tries to perform CPR anyway, he or she will probably not be covered by the Good Samaritan protection.
Also, in some states, the Good Samaritan law only applies to offduty health care workers. In other words, only a doctor, nurse or the like would be protected by the law.
Our website is not responsible for the information contained by this article. Webworldarticles.com is a free articles resource thus practically any visitor can submit an article. However if you notice any copyrighted material, please contact us and we will remove the article(s) in discussion right away.
This article was sent to us by:
Jasom Whittery at
02022010
1. The damage in case of Personal injury
All articles in this directory are property of their respective authors. Additionally, read our Privacy Policy
© 2010 WebWorldarticles.com - All Rights Reserved. Partners: Gunblade Saga