How Georgia courts treat damages in IIED claims: severe emotional distress beyond endurance.

Georgia torts often hinge on a few big ideas that keep happening in courtrooms: what counts as serious harm, how much harm is enough to justify a claim, and what a plaintiff has to prove to win. One of those big ideas is the damages threshold for intentional infliction of emotional distress, or IIED. If you’ve ever seen a Georgia torts question pop up on a bar-style exam, this is the kind of topic that shows up in the mix of fact patterns and legal standards. Let me lay out the core idea clearly and then connect the dots with how a court actually evaluates damages.

The quick answer, right upfront

• The correct choice is B: Proving severe emotional distress beyond a reasonable person’s endurance.

In plain terms: you don’t win IIED damages by showing just any feeling of hurt or annoyance. The law asks for something more intense and lasting than what a typical person could reasonably bear. Georgia follows that same high bar you’ll see in many jurisdictions: the distress must be severe, not merely transient or mild.

So, what does “severe emotional distress” actually mean?

• It isn’t the everyday ups and downs. The distress has to be more than the routine sadness, disappointment, or embarrassment most people experience at some point.

• Think of intensity and duration. How strong is the reaction? How long does it last? Does it disrupt daily life—work, sleep, appetite, relationships?

• The way distress shows up matters too. Do you see notable changes in behavior, sleep patterns, or the ability to carry on with normal activities? Are there medical or psychological treatments that stem from the emotional reaction?

Georgia courts routinely emphasize that the standard is meant to filter out trivial or petty claims. The phrase “beyond a reasonable person’s endurance” isn’t a vague hurdle; it’s a concrete expectation that the harm is substantial enough to merit the court’s attention. The idea is to reserve IIED for harms that are truly significant rather than for emotions that are common, short-lived, or easily managed.

What about the other elements of IIED?

• Intent or recklessness: The defendant’s conduct must be intentional or reckless. In other words, it can be shocking or outrageous, and the person who acted knew or should have known that their behavior could cause distress. The claim isn’t usually about mere negligence; it’s about conduct that crosses a line.

• Extreme or outrageous conduct: This isn’t vague either. The behavior has to go beyond all bounds of decency that society would tolerate. It’s the kind of conduct that makes you question whether a normal person could withstand it.

• Causation: There has to be a link between the outrageous conduct and the emotional distress. It’s not enough for bad conduct to happen; the distress has to flow from that conduct.

• Damages: This is where severity comes in. The emotional distress must be real and substantial. The case law often looks at symptoms, treatment, and how life has changed because of the distress.

Now, about damages specifically—do you need physical harm?

• You don’t need a physical injury to prove IIED damages. The model here is that emotional harm itself can be the compensable harm. That said, if there are accompanying physical symptoms or medical issues, they can help support the claim—but physical injury isn’t a prerequisite.

• The absence of physical injury doesn’t doom an IIED claim, but it can make the case more challenging. The plaintiff may need stronger evidence of the emotional impact and its daily life consequences.

A note on intent and malice

• The multiple-choice option D mentions malicious intent. In practice, the requirement is typically intent or recklessness in causing distress, not necessarily malice in the colloquial sense. You don’t always need proof that the defendant intended to cause extreme distress, but you do need a showing that they acted with a sufficient level of culpability—intent or a recklessness about the likelihood of causing severe distress.

• Because the emphasis is on severity of the distress and the outrageousness of the conduct, the focus isn’t always on a cruel motive. It’s about whether the defendant crossed a line and the emotional harm that followed.

What juries weigh when evaluating severity

• The intensity and duration of distress are the big levers. A short-lived burst of anger isn’t going to cut it, even if it feels big in the moment.

• How the distress plays out day to day matters. If someone’s distress causes sleep problems, appetite changes, withdrawal from friends, or inability to work, those are strong signals that the distress is severe.

• Medical or psychological treatment can be telling. If the plaintiff seeks therapy, medication, or other professional help, those actions provide corroboration of the distress’s seriousness.

• The context and the plaintiff’s life also matter. What would be shocking or outrageous in one setting might be less so in another. The court looks at the total picture, not just a single incident.

Putting it into a real-world frame

Imagine a situation where a neighbor publicly humiliates you in a way that’s humiliating not just in the moment, but leaves lingering effects—permanent embarrassment in social settings, ongoing anxiety about interactions with others, and a noticeable change in daily routines. If these effects persist and shape how you live, the distress could meet the “severe” threshold. On the other hand, someone calling you a rude name once at a party or sharing a rumor privately—without lasting impact—likely wouldn’t reach that level.

Why this distinction matters beyond the courtroom

• For claimants, the threshold protects important emotional rights without flooding courts with trivial complaints. It helps ensure the system addresses harms that are genuinely serious.

• For defendants, it sets a high bar for proving not just that they offended someone, but that the offense was so extreme and the resulting distress so intense that legal remedy is appropriate.

• For Georgia torts practitioners, the takeaway is practical: evidence of severity—behavioral changes, medical records, consistent testimony about daily life disruption—can be decisive. Vague feelings or a single crying episode aren’t enough; there needs to be a pattern or persistent impact.

How this plays out in documentation and testimony

• Documented evidence helps. Diaries or journals noting daily struggles, bills for therapy, or statements from family and friends about changes in behavior can all bolster the claim.

• Consistency in testimony matters. The plaintiff’s stories should align across time and with any medical records or third-party observations.

• Defendants may challenge the severity by focusing on alternative explanations for distress or by arguing the conduct was not as outrageous as claimed. The defense may also try to frame the distress as foreseeable consequences of ordinary disputes.

What this means for a Georgia bar-style scenario

• When a question asks about damages for IIED, the safe, correct anchor is the severity standard. Look for phrases in the scenario that describe prolonged, intense distress that disrupts daily life, rather than fleeting emotions.

• Don’t overread the facts as requiring physical injury or a particular motive. The emphasis is on whether the emotional harm itself is severe and beyond what a reasonable person could endure.

• If the question presents evidence of extreme conduct and noticeable consequences to daily functioning, you’re more likely facing a valid IIED damages argument.

A closing thought

IIED sits at the intersection of human vulnerability and legal seriousness. It’s not about policing every bruised feeling, but about recognizing harm that is genuinely beyond the ordinary. In Georgia, the bar-standard lens asks: is the distress severe, and does it transcend what a reasonable person could endure? If the answer is yes, the damages piece of the IIED claim moves from a mere assertion to a claim that deserves careful, thoughtful consideration in court.

If you’re discussing or studying these ideas with friends or peers, you might ask: what kinds of evidence would tip a jury toward recognizing the distress as severe? Would a pattern of symptoms, a track record of treatment, or a sustained change in daily life be the clincher? These kinds of questions help ground the law in real-life consequences and keep the focus on what matters most: the human impact behind the legal standard.