F: While the P was a customer in D’s store, one of D’s employee used a insulting language. And, as a result of it, the P claims that she suffered from mental or emotional distress, and an ensuing heart attack and aggravation of pre-existing heart disease.
I: Whether the D is liable for fact that the P is insulted by language and suffered from mental distress, and an entailing heart attack under the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
R: Conduct that causes mere emotional distress is not severe enough to allow recovery
A: So far as it is possible to generalize form the cases, the rule which seems to be emerging is that there is liability only for conduct exceeding all bounds which could be tolerated by society, of a nature especially calculated to cause mental damage of a very serious kind.
The courts have from an early date granted relief for offense reasonably suffered by a patron from insult by a servant or employee of a carrier, hotel, theater, and most recently, a telegraph office. The existence of a specialy relationship, arising either from contract or from the inherent nature of a noncompetitive public utility, supports a right and correlative duty of courtesy beyond that legally required in general mercantile or personal relationships.
Co: [Threat to well being is not the same as apprehension of harmful or offensive contact.
Physical wellbeing, compared to dignity (by saying physical wellbeing, it excludes the offensiveness...) Offensiveness relates to dignity,
Connection btw. Remedies and Free: Remedies (inproportional to freedom)
As the remedies is expanding, the available room for freedom in society is low.
This case reminds of the Spivey case (compared to Garratt case), substantial certainty of the harmful, or offensive result that will occur. (~~of a nature especially calculated to cause mental damages of a very serious kind~~~)
Merely cursing someone in minor way is not enough to contstitute emotional distress