This claim generally requires conduct that goes beyond mere insults or rudeness — courts typically look for behavior that is extreme and outrageous, exceeding what a reasonable person could be expected to tolerate in a civilized society, done intentionally or recklessly.

Because the bar is deliberately high, many claims fail not because the plaintiff wasn't genuinely distressed, but because the underlying conduct, while unpleasant, doesn't meet the extreme and outrageous standard courts apply.

This version generally applies when someone's careless conduct causes severe emotional harm, often requiring the plaintiff to have been in the zone of danger during the triggering event, or to have witnessed serious harm to a close family member.

Many jurisdictions also require some physical manifestation of the distress, such as documented symptoms, rather than accepting a purely psychological claim without any corroborating evidence.

Because emotional distress is inherently subjective, courts and juries generally look for corroborating evidence, such as medical or mental health treatment records, testimony from people who observed changes in the plaintiff's behavior, or documented physical symptoms.

The severity and duration of the distress also matter; a brief, transient reaction to an unpleasant event is treated very differently than a diagnosed, ongoing condition that a mental health professional has documented and connected to the specific incident.

Courts are generally cautious about standalone emotional distress claims, partly out of concern about speculative or exaggerated claims that are difficult to verify objectively, which is why the legal standards for both intentional and negligent versions are relatively demanding.

Some jurisdictions limit or bar negligent infliction of emotional distress claims entirely unless they're attached to an underlying physical injury or a specific statutory claim, so the availability of a standalone claim can vary meaningfully depending on where the case is filed.