THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 24 | SEPTEMBER 2025 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. It’s been 114 years since then, and it seems each passing decade has brought significant developments. But what happens today in Oklahoma if your client is distressed and wants to sue over it? Let us travel back through time to see where the law is currently. THE TWO CATEGORIES OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIMS Oklahoma has historically recognized two claims based in emotional distress: intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). Technically, Oklahoma does not recognize NIED as an independent tort claim. Rather, it is nestled within the realm of negligence in general. Accordingly, NIED claims require the plaintiff to demonstrate the four key elements of a simple negligence action: 1) The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff (not to cause the plaintiff emotional distress); 2) the defendant breached that duty to the plaintiff (the tortfeasor did engage in emotionally distressing conduct to the plaintiff); 3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury (the emotionally distressing conduct was indeed the cause of the plaintiff’s emotional distress); and 4) the plaintiff suffered actual emotional distress (the plaintiff can prove they suffered mentally).4 On the other hand, Oklahoma does recognize IIED as an independent tort. For IIED claims, plaintiffs must establish the following: 1) extreme and outrageous Torts A Century of Tort Law Related to Emotional Distress Claims in Oklahoma By Kindra N. Dotson OKLAHOMA JURISPRUDENCE HAS TAKEN QUITE A JOURNEY THROUGH TIME in the emotional distress arena. It is a ride that sometimes leaves litigators a bit shaken and that has often led to inconsistent rulings on very similar facts. For example, in a case decided only four years after statehood, the court in W. Union Tel. Co. v. Choteau1 observed: “The ‘mental anguish’ doctrine in telegraph2 and other cases throughout the United States has been a fruitful field of discord. Not only are courts of different jurisdictions at direct variance with each other, but some of the courts which allow recovery have been at cross- purposes with themselves in their adjudications, and in all numerous instances of dissent and dissenting opinions without reference to the holding have been made and filed.” The Choteau court ultimately held that “the right of recovery herein did not exist at common law” and that as far as the emotional distress claims, “the judgment rendered herein [in plaintiff’s favor] was erroneous.”3
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==