Intentional infliction of emotional distress, sometimes called the tort of outrage, targets conduct that is not merely rude, insulting, or unkind but genuinely extreme -- conduct courts describe as exceeding all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized community. It is deliberately a narrow tort. Judges act as gatekeepers, frequently dismissing IIED claims at the pleading stage or on summary judgment because the alleged conduct, however unpleasant, does not clear the outrageousness bar as a matter of law.

The narrowness is intentional: without it, ordinary workplace friction, breakups, and business disputes could routinely be repackaged as tort claims. Courts instead reserve IIED for conduct that shocks the conscience, often looking to a pattern of abuse, a significant power imbalance between the parties, or the defendant's knowledge of a particular vulnerability in the plaintiff.

A plaintiff must show: extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant; intent to cause severe emotional distress, or reckless disregard of the probability that the conduct would cause it; a causal link between the conduct and the plaintiff's distress; and severe emotional distress actually suffered. Recklessness satisfies the intent element -- the defendant need not have specifically wanted to cause distress, only have consciously disregarded a high probability that its conduct would.

The same conduct can be actionable in one relationship and not another. Courts weigh whether the defendant held a position of power or authority over the plaintiff -- an employer over an employee, a debt collector over a debtor -- because abuse of such leverage is judged more harshly than conduct between equals. Courts also weigh whether the defendant knew of a specific vulnerability, such as a known medical or psychological condition, and exploited it, and whether the conduct was an isolated flare-up or a sustained pattern.

Plaintiffs typically present a detailed factual narrative of the conduct, testimony about the severity and duration of their distress, and, where available, medical or psychological corroboration, though many jurisdictions do not strictly require it. Defendants routinely move to dismiss or for summary judgment arguing the conduct was not outrageous as a matter of law, that any distress falls short of 'severe,' or, in speech-based claims involving public figures or matters of public concern, that the First Amendment bars recovery. Juricratic can represent the outrageousness and severity elements as separate dials in a simulated matter, letting a user explore how the case's strength shifts as each element is stress-tested -- never as a prediction of a court's ruling.