Dina be proven. The case does in fact state

Dina DuVall

& Exams 
Course: Torts
& Personal Injury: PLG-101-1801 
Assignment: Assignment 1 – based on classes 1 and 3

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now




Please read the following case: Watson v. Dixon, 130 N.C. App. 47, 51 (N.C. Ct. App.
The case is available here:
please answer, in one to two paragraphs each, each of the following questions:



1) What were the essential
facts of that case?


Case of Watson v. Dixon, 130 N.C. App. 47, 51 (N.C. Ct. App.
1998) the appeal overview stated, Sarah Joan Watson, Plaintiff, experienced
sexual harassment in the workplace by Bobby Dixon’s verbal lewd remarks.  Sarah Joan Watson did not promote Bobby
Dixon’s undesirable physical touch and with other inappropriate conduct over a
series of several months.  Sarah also
reported such conduct (on several occasions) to her employer and no action was
taken.  Accountability and responsibility
of the employer should have been in a series of immediate interviews. by all
parties involved and to pursue disciplinary action (bullet points affected
subject matter). 




by Employer

and Remedies


Liability by Employer

to Award Against Employee


2)      What
are the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress under North
Carolina law?


Under the North Carolina law, it’s stated that claims
pertaining to a negligent infliction of emotional distress includes litigation specifics must prove
reasonable within the listed items 1) Defendants conduct is deemed negligent,
2) the incident at hand is reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff had
experienced emotional distress, such conduct is in fact must be proven.  The case does in fact state a usual procedure and will involve plaintiff(s), employee(s) and will also be applicable to
the employer(s).  Within all states the
elements required in torts include the negligence of the defendant and in the emotional injury toward the plaintiff.  The main elements for the Durham County
Superior Court in North Carolina are the listed


of intentional infliction pertaining to emotional distress



which is harmful or offensive contact


3) How were the elements of
intentional infliction of emotional distress applied to that case?  In other words, explain why the court
concluded that there was enough evidence to establish intentional infliction of
emotional distress.

Please do not worry about
or discuss the negligent retention issue. We’re only interested in the
intentional infliction of emotional distress elements of this case.


of the applicable elements were expressed in this case of Sarah Joan Watson,
Plaintiff v. Bobby Dixon and Duke University, Defendants.  The trial did not side for the defendants and
on claiming for the plaintiff for intentional infliction of emotional distress against
the employee of Duke University.  The
defendant employer did not ague the harassment where defendants resisted only
that the extreme and outrageous element of plaintiff’s claim was not met.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence
tends to show that defendant Dixon began to harass Watson approximately one
month from the date she began work; he frightened and humiliated her with cruel
practical jokes, which escalated to obscene comments and behavior of a sexual
nature, which then escalated to unwanted touching of her person, finally
culminating in veiled threats to her personal safety; this behavior continued
virtually unchecked for some seven or eight months; several of her coworkers
testified that plaintiff appeared emotionally upset while at work; and
plaintiff eventually suffered a nervous breakdown.




Zone of
Danger Rule


to the impact rule

Complies to the zone of danger rule, or the “foreseeability”
rule in order for it to be valid:

Foreseeability Rule – The
defendant must have been able to reasonably foresee that his or her
actions would have caused the emotional distress (followed by most
Zone of Danger Rule – The
plaintiff was in a specific “zone of danger” and at risk of
physical harm, causing fear.
Impact Rule –
Defendant’s negligent act had at least a minor impact on the plaintiff,
causing injury (very few states follow this).


An IRAC-style essay is NOT necessary for this