The Tort of Outrage and Some Objectivity about Subjectivity
-
Cristina Carmody Tilley
Abstract
The tort of outrage has been sidelined in recent decades by judges and academics who question its legitimacy. This Article is an attempt to move outrage from the margins to the center of American tort law. It begins by unearthing the complex intellectual history that produced judicial skepticism about this tort. The Legal Realists who “invented” outrage made a strategic decision to condition liability on the “outrageousness” of behavior rather than to identify discrete acts as wrongful. This doctrinal indeterminacy was necessary to quell corporate opposition to the tort. Ultimately, however, it has led modern courts and scholars to label outrage as “inherently subjective” and therefore “disfavored.”
The Article challenges this conventional view by proposing a scientific basis for distinguishing ordinary aggression from its outrageous counterpart. Neuroscience literature suggests that threats levelled with awareness of a target´s inability to follow through on the biologically reflexive fight or flight response produce physiologically maladaptive distress. In contrast, threats to which a target can freely respond produce benign, adaptive, stress. Consequently, defendant aggression is “outrageous” when it exploits a plaintiff’s known inability to execute a prosocial response. This science-based model of “outrageousness” provides a neutral baseline against which to evaluate the critique that the tort necessarily requires subjective evaluations of defendant behavior. When plaintiff paralysis results from external dynamics the defendant recognized and exploited, jurors need not assign priority to either the plaintiff’s or the defendant’s worldview to find a wrong. But when plaintiff paralysis results from internal feelings of powerlessness that may stem from race or gender experience, jurors must credit the plaintiff’s experience and disregard the defendant´s apparent ignorance of it in order to find a wrong, a process that appears to subjectively prioritize one worldview over another. So whether liability is objective or subjective in a given case turns on whether the impediment to plaintiff action was external or internal.
In its concluding section, the Article undertakes an empirical examination of jury verdicts to determine the relative frequency of “objective” and “subjective” liability assignments. It finds that juries are most likely to assign liability in situations where plaintiff paralysis arose from external, objectively observable impediments recognized by defendants. In other words, outrage liability typically stigmatizes behavior that is objectively understood by both the defendant and the community at large to be antisocial. That said, juries occasionally assign liability where a woman or a person of color felt paralyzed by perceived powerlessness the defendant may not have appreciated. The Article ultimately suggests that this small but persistent segment of “subjective” verdicts – far from demonstrating the tort’s illegitimacy – highlights the social power of private injury law.
Acknowledgement
Thank you to Anita Bernstein and G. Edward White for helpful comments on earlier drafts, and to Stephen Hilfer for outstanding research assistance. All errors remain my own.
Appendix (plaintiff verdicts by state)
California
CA-P-1
Non-specific neuroscientific signature
Stepp v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Group Inc.
2015 WL 10684612
CA-P-2
Workplace harassment
Bardon v. Microvention, Inc.
2015 WL 6523743
CA-P-3
Workplace harassment
Parnello v. Papiano
2015 WL 6689215
CA-P-4
Interference with quiet enjoyment of property
Flint v. Sullivan Mgt. Co.
2105 WL 10533208
CA-P-5
Threat of mob violence
Epps v. Barajas
2015 WL 5306493
CA-P-6
Workplace harassment
Jones v. Celebrity Homecare Inc.
2015 WL 10520602
CA-P-7
Invasion of female sexual privacy
Scaccetti v. Berg
2015 WL 9841770
CA-P-8
Workplace harassment
Morgan v. ProTraffic Serv. Inc.
2015 WL 10-861078
CA-P-9
Invasion of female sexual privacy
Schwartz v. Oakdale Heights Mgt. Corp.
2010 WL 9447191
CA-P-10
Outlier
Dale v. Ladalardo
2010 WL 5858179
CA-P-11
Police excessive force
Domingo-Leyro v. City of Chowchilla
2010 WL 3096641
CA-P-12
Workplace harassment
Ventura v. ABM Indus. Inc.
2010 WL 8608864
CA-P-13
Abuse of process/detective power
Moreno v. Ostley
2010 WL 3625187
CA-P-14
Interference with quiet enjoyment of property
Morton v. Spotts
2010 WL 8058313
CA-P-15
Workplace harassment
Li v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership
2010 WL 4111579
CA-P-16
Bad faith insurance adjusting
Bosetti v. United States Life Ins. Co.
2010 WL 8608862
CA-P-17
Workplace harassment
Toufer v. Republic Document Mgt. Inc.
2010 WL 5596804
CA-P-18
Outlier
Stinson v. Leisure Palms
2010 WL 7955323
CA-P-19
Non-specific neuroscientific signature
Saadian v. Saadian
2010 WL 5166583
CA-P-20
Interference with quiet enjoyment of property
Pierre v. Cox
2010 WL 6649006
CA-P-21
Outlier
Bohl v. Hesperia Resorter, Inc.
2010 WL 8591331
CA-P-22
Interference with quiet enjoyment of property
Weisbrot v. Lewin Properties Inc.
2010 WL 6368350
CA-P-23
Workplace harassment
Lagman v. Loveday
2010 WL 6731501
CA-P-24
Abuse of government authority
Gillan v. City of San Marino
2005 WL 6703590
CA-P-25
Workplace harassment
Hettick v. Federal Express
2005 WL 6933716
CA-P-26
Non-specific neuroscientific signature
Ravella v. McGraw-Hill Cos.
2005 WL 3676715
CA-P-27
Outlier
Montez v. Meyda Beauty Salon
2005 WL 2297576
CA-P-28
Non-specific neuroscientific signature
Hartman v. Golden State Drilling Inc.
2005 WL 5681290
CA-P-29
Outlier
Tretta v. Anderson-Brentwood Dental Ofc.
2005 WL 6715746
CA-P-30
Invasion of Female Sexual Privacy
Crosby v. Everett
2005 WL 4883209
CA-P-31
Workplace Harassment
Baker v. Privateair
2005 WL 6957290
CA-P-32
Abuse of government authority
Nguyen v. City and County of San Francisco
2000 WL 463462
CA-P-33
Non-specific neuroscientific signature
Lindsey v. Century National INS Co.
2000 WL 35913833
CA-P-34
Workplace harassment
Clark v. Axiom Ent.
2000 WL 1920261
CA-P-35
Workplace harassment
Sangster v. Cooke
1995 WL 817684
CA-P-36
Invasion of male sexual privacy
Doe v. Loken
1995 WL 766063
CA-P-37
Police excessive force
Cinquegrani v. County of Los Angeles
1995 WL 766153
CA-P-38
Abuse of detective authority
Vetter v. Certified Grocers of Cal. Ltd.
1995 WL 686796
CA-P-39
Interference with quiet enjoyment
Scott v Scott
1995 WL 766237
CA-P-40
Outlier
Eiden v. Toshiba Am. Info. Sys.
1995 WL 865018
CA-P-41
Invasion of female sexual privacy
Dawson v. Ring
1995 WL 817735
CA-P-42
Invasion of female sexual privacy
Case name not given
1995 WL 18008839
CA-P-43
Invasion of female sexual privacy
Flores v. Beiruty
1995 WL 18009028
CA-P-44
Interference with death rituals
Ulloa v. Ulloa
1995 WL 866209
CA-P-45
Invasion of female sexual privacy
Curtis v. Dizmang
1990 WL 10080043
CA-P-46
Police excessive force
Davis v. City of San Leandro
1990 WL 459418
CA-P-47
Police excessive force
Connolly v. City and County of San Francisco
1990 WL 460565
CA-P-48
Abuse of detective authority
Stack v. Hale
1990 WL 463384
CA-P-49
Workplace harassment
Johnson v. Rome Fin. Co.
1990 WL 10080433
CA-P-50
Interference with quiet enjoyment of property
Vasquez v. University Students Coop Ass’n
1990 WL 4678673
CA-P-51
Workplace harassment
Treen v. Silva
1985 WL 727886
CA-P-52
Non-specific neuroscientific signature
Lisec & Jigga v. United Airlines
1985 WL 727885
CA-P-53
Outlier
Hudak v. Chet Monez Ford
1985 WL 727859
CA-P-54
Outlier
Sullivan v. Sullivan
1985 WL 727688
Texas
TX-P-1
Non-specific neuroscientific signature
Livingston v. Livingston
2015 WL 10133153
TX-P-2
Workplace harassment
Moyers v. River Oaks Med. Ctr.
2010 WL 8470573
TX-P-3
Workplace harassment
Olivari v. City Pub. Serv. Bldg. of San Antonio
2005 Wl 3982052
TX-P-4
Workplace harassment (practical jokes)
Cunningham v. Richeson Mgt. Corp.
2005 WL 6956932
TX-P-5
Interference with quiet enjoyment of property
Parks v. Limanek
2000 WL 35917292
TX-P-6
Non-specific neuroscientific signature
Freeman v. Cresthaven Nursing Res.
2000 WL 35921420
TX-P-7
Non-specific neuroscientific signature
Chesser v. Normallife Inc.
2000 WL 36115918
TX-P-8
Non-specific neuroscientific signature
In the matter of the Marriage of Xeller
2000 WL 36117353
TX-P-9
Abusive collection practices
Driscoll v. Household Credit Serv.
1995 WL 17998409
Illinois
IL-P-1
Abuse in public accommodation/detective authority
Blackshaw v. Rush Ent.
2010 WL 3840374
Il-P-2
Outlier
Miller v. Cotton
2010 WL 5175815
Il-P-3
Interference with death rituals/willful abduction of child
Newman v. Squire
2010 WL 3292920
IL-P-4
Abuse of government authority
Cobige v. City of Chicago
2010 WL 3292921
IL-P-5
Police excessive force
Bey v. City of Chicago
2010 WL 3292923
Il-P-6
Bad faith insurance adjusting
Knysak v. Shelter Life Ins. Co.
1995 WL 17008075
New York
NY-P-1
Abuse of government authority/process
Naclerio v. Barker
2015 WL 10354568
NY-P-2
Invasion of female sexual privacy
Leviston v. Jackson
2015 WL 10102428
NY-P-3
Police excessive force
Brim v. City of New York
2015 WL 6734974
NY-P-4
Interference with quiet enjoyment of property/bad faith insurance adjusting
Cusimano v. Lido Beach Towers
2015 WL 3542984
NY-P-5
Non-specific neuroscientific signature
Baccash v. Sayegh
2005 WL 6708933
NY-P-6
Interference with quiet enjoyment of property
Schehr v. McEvoy
2005 WL 6744295
NY-P-7
Interference with quiet enjoyment of property
Kavanaugh v. 5359 Second Ave. Ass’n
1990 WL 467233
NY-P-8
Common carrier abuse/abuse of detective authority
Lewis v. 597 Food Corp.
2000 WL 33906387
Florida
FL-P-1
Common carrier abuse/abuse of government-detective authority
Tasoren v. Warrington
2010 WL 1040044
FL-P-2
Workplace harassment
Medina v. United Christian Evangelist Ass’n
2010 WL 4565491
FL-P-3
Outlier
Pressley v. Canseco
2005 WL 6702834
FL-P-4
Interference with death rituals
Post v. Professional Transp. Sys.
2005 WL 6933825
FL-P-5
Abuse of government authority-process
India v. Cassell
2005 WL 6933542
FL-P-6
Workplace harassment
Griffin v. City of Opalaka
2000 WL 968622
FL-P-7
Bad faith insurance adjusting
Chipps v. Humana Health Ins. Co.
2000 WL 36099528
FL-P-8
Workplace Harassment
Mathews v. Vacation Network Inc.
1995 WL 907584
FL-P-9
Non-specific neuroscientific signature
Norton v. Straight, Inc.
1990 WL 10635624
FL-P-10
Non-specific neuroscientific signature
Astkoff v. Boyles
1990 WL 10635631
FL-P-11
Outlier
Elwell v. Circus World
1990 WL 630099
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Editor’s Introduction Symposium Issue: New Voices
- Articles
- Autonomous Vehicles, Technological Progress, and the Scope Problem in Products Liability
- Shifting Liability with Licensing: An Empirical Analysis of Medical Malpractice and Scope-of-Practice Laws
- Aiding and Abetting Matters
- The Tort of Outrage and Some Objectivity about Subjectivity
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Editor’s Introduction Symposium Issue: New Voices
- Articles
- Autonomous Vehicles, Technological Progress, and the Scope Problem in Products Liability
- Shifting Liability with Licensing: An Empirical Analysis of Medical Malpractice and Scope-of-Practice Laws
- Aiding and Abetting Matters
- The Tort of Outrage and Some Objectivity about Subjectivity
