Question

Facts: Late one night, an anti-abortion protestor named Robert Thomas climbed into a dumpster located behind the Women's Advisory Center, an abortion clinic. He found documents indicating that the plaintiffs were soon to have abortions at the clinic. Thomas gave the information to Lynn Mills. The next day, Mills and Sister Lois Mitoraj created signs, using the women's names, indicating that they were about to undergo abortions, and urging them not to "kill their babies." Doe and Roe (not their real names) sued, claiming intentional infliction of emotional stress (as well as breach of privacy, discussed later in this chapter). The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the defendants' conduct was not extreme and outrageous. The plaintiffs appealed. Issue: Have the plaintiffs made a valid claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress? Holding: Dismissal reversed, and remanded for trial. "The objectionable aspect of defendants' conduct does not relate to their views on abortion or their right to express those views, but, rather, to the fact that defendants gave unreasonable or unnecessary publicity to purely private matters involving plaintiffs... . We believe this is the type of case that might cause an average member of the community, upon learning of defendants' conduct, to exclaim, 'Outrageous!" Answer the following questions: Question 1: What are the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress? Question 2: According to the appeals court, how does the law determine whether a defendant's conduct is sufficiently extreme to constitute this tort? Question 3: Don't the defendants have a First Amendment right to express their opinions? Question 4: Then how can the appeals court reverse the trial court's dismissal? Isn't the court diminishing the defendants' First Amendment rights? Question 5: Does the appeals court ruling mean that the plaintiffs have proven their case of intentional infliction of emotional distress?