Business Law Case Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Business Law Case - Essay Example odgers for causing her, intentionally, emotional distress and anguish but the defendants claim that no damage is recoverable unless distress result in physical injury. Infliction of emotional distress exists if an â€Å"extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly† results in severe emotional instability in another party (Mann and Rogers 120). A person that causes such a distress assumes liability for the distress and possible consequences of the distress. An act is further said to be reckless if it disregards possible consequences or fails. According to the third restatement, knowledge of possible severe emotional instability and failure to take measures for mitigating effects of the instability and indifference over the possible consequences define recklessness. A person is entitled to damages for severe emotional distress is suffered emotional instability is severe and if an ordinary person would suffer the consequences under normal circumstances. There is no need for proof of physical harm in order to recover damages for emotional distress (Mann and Rogers 120). The case of Ferrell v. Mikula 627 SE2d7 illustrates the rule. In the case, a manager at Ruby Tuesday restaurant ordered a security offers to follow customers who were believed suspected to have left without paying for their orders. This was however a mistake because the target had paid their bills and were confused with two parties who had been excused from making payments. The target were then stopped, handcuffed and placed in police patrol car but later released after confirmation that they had actually paid their bills. The target sued for infliction of emotional distress that was dismissed at the original and appellate court. The court of appeal of Georgia argued that a case for infliction of emotional distress must meet four elements. There must have been intentional of reckless behavior that must further be â€Å"extreme or outrageous† (Mann and Rogers 121). The act must have further