Question

Mark decided to play a practical joke on Luke, a co-worker at a bank. As Luke was finishing up closing the branch for the night, Mark wearing a ski mask came in through the back door. He pointed a handgun made out of a candy bar at Luke and demanded the money in the drawer. He then pushed the candy gun to his head and told him if he told anybody he'd kill him. Luke was terrified during the whole incident. He did not think it was funny when Mark pulled the mask off and took a bite out of the gun as he gave Luke his money back. Did Mark commit the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Answer 1

Mark's practical joke on Luke involving a fake robbery and a candy gun could be seen as intentional infliction of emotional distress, as it was intentional, extreme, and caused severe emotional distress in a sensitive setting.

Step-by-step explanation:

Mark's act of playing a practical joke on Luke by pretending to rob him with a candy bar shaped like a gun and threatening his life could potentially be considered an act of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The legal elements that typically need to be established for IIED are: the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; the conduct caused the plaintiff emotional distress; and the emotional distress was severe. In this situation, Mark intentionally caused Luke fear and distress by simulating a dangerous and life-threatening situation inside a bank, despite the fact that the handgun was made of candy. The intensity of Luke's fear during the incident suggests that the emotional distress could be considered severe.

Furthermore, Mark's actions within a highly sensitive environment, such as a bank, and the realistic threat with a seemingly deadly weapon, make his conduct extreme and outrageous, fitting within the definition of IIED. Drawing from the provided examples, Mark's behavior reflects a pattern of highly inappropriate and reckless actions in various scenarios, reinforcing the potential for liability under tort law.