Opinion ID: 1859780
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adoption of Majority Approach

Text: We conclude that the majority approach is consistent with our precedents and the underlying policies governing the law of intentional infliction of emotional distress. As previously discussed, the Court in Medlin examined and rejected arguments traditionally used to justify limiting actions for mental distress. In Medlin , the Court dispensed with the first argumentnon-recognition of intentional infliction of emotional distress as an independent tort. After weighing the policy considerations for and against recognizing intentional infliction of emotional distress as an independent tort, this Court concluded that the purposes for permitting recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress outweigh[] the valid policy consideration against allowing such actions. Medlin, 398 S.W.2d at 274. Additionally, through our interpretation of intentional infliction of emotional distress, this Court has also rejected a second argumentthe requirement of an accompanying physical injury. See Medlin, 398 S.W.2d at 273-74. The policy underlying development of the tort is that legitimate claims for emotional distress should be actionable and should be judged on their merits. With our decision today, we reject a third argumentthe requirement of expert testimony. In so doing, we ensure that a plaintiff with a legitimate claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress will have an opportunity to seek redress for that claim, unburdened by the historical limits imposed by law. The defendants argue that by permitting claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress to proceed without expert testimony, we will create inconsistency with regard to proving serious mental injuries. In Camper v. Minor, 915 S.W.2d 437, 446 (Tenn.1996), we held that a claimed injury or impairment caused by a defendant's negligent infliction of emotional distress must be supported by expert medical or scientific proof. Accordingly, the defendants here contend that if we require expert medical or scientific proof for negligent infliction of emotional distress but not intentional infliction of emotional distress, serious mental injury will cease to have a unified meaning as a term of art. We disagree. Our decision does not change the definition of serious mental injury, but it does distinguish between the methods of proof for the separate torts. This is so, because, although the injury sustained in both torts is the same, the circumstances surrounding the infliction of the injury are not. We recognize that legitimate concerns of fraudulent and trivial claims are implicated when a plaintiff brings an action for a purely mental injury. Thus, safeguards are needed to ensure the reliability of claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. These safeguards, however, differ based on the kind of conduct, rather than the kind of injury, for which a plaintiff seeks a remedy. With regard to intentional infliction of emotional distress, the added measure of reliability, i.e., the insurance against frivolous claims, is found in the plaintiff's burden to prove that the offending conduct was outrageous. This is an exacting standard requiring the plaintiff to show that the defendant's conduct is 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 community. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. d (1965). Such conduct is important evidence that the distress has existed, id. § 45 cmt. j, and from such conduct, more reliable indicia of a severe mental injury may arise. The outrageous nature of the conduct, therefore, vitiates the need for expert testimony in a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The risk of frivolous litigation, then, is alleviated in claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress by the requirement that a plaintiff prove that the offending conduct was so outrageous that it is not tolerated by a civilized society. In cases of negligent infliction of emotional distress, however, the conduct giving rise to the tort is not marked by extraordinary or outrageous elements inherent in intentional conduct. Thus, concerns with unwarranted claims are not addressed by the kind of conduct that must be proved to obtain damages for emotional distress. In the absence of any reliable indicia of a severe mental injury suggested by the conduct, some safeguard must be imposed to limit frivolous litigation. Accordingly, when the conduct complained of is negligent rather than intentional, the plaintiff must prove the serious mental injury by expert medical or scientific proof. See Camper, 915 S.W.2d at 446. Although we adopt the majority approach and hold that plaintiffs normally will not be required to support their claims of serious mental injury by expert proof in order to recover damages in a suit based upon the intentional infliction of emotional distress, we certainly do not discredit the use of expert testimony at trial. We are fully aware that there will be many cases in which a judge or jury may not appreciate the full extent and disabling effects of a plaintiff's emotional injury without expert evidence. For example, our decision in no way changes the long-standing requirement that expert testimony is required to support an award of damages for personal injuries that are permanent in character. See, e.g., Sanders v. Johnson, 859 S.W.2d 329, 331 (Tenn. Ct. App.1993); Porter v. Green, 745 S.W.2d 874, 877-78 (Tenn. Ct. App.1987). Our decision today merely recognizes that in most cases other forms of proof may also be used to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Such proof may include a claimant's own testimony, see Peery, 897 P.2d at 1191, as well as the testimony of other lay witnesses acquainted with the claimant, see Uebelacker, 549 N.E.2d at 1220. Physical manifestations of emotional distress may also serve as proof of serious mental injury. Moreover, evidence that a plaintiff has suffered from nightmares, insomnia, and depression or has sought psychiatric treatment may support a claim of a serious mental injury. See Medlin, 398 S.W.2d at 272; Johnson v. Woman's Hosp., 527 S.W.2d 133, 140 (Tenn. Ct. App.1975). The intensity and duration of the mental distress are also factors that may be considered in determining the severity of the injury. [4] Such proof, however, is no guarantee that a plaintiff will prevail. The weight, faith, and credibility afforded to any witness's testimony lies in the first instance with the trier of fact who is free to conclude that the subjective testimony of a plaintiff or other lay witnesses is not sufficient to prove a serious mental injury. Thus, although not legally required, [e]xpert testimony may be the most effective method of demonstrating the existence of severe emotional distress. Richardson, 705 P.2d at 457 n. 6.