A more thorough explanation:

Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is a legal term that refers to a situation where someone intentionally or recklessly causes another person to suffer severe emotional distress. This can include threats of future harm or other outrageous behavior.

In order for a case of IIED to be established, the following elements must be present:

• The defendant acted in an outrageous manner
• The defendant acted intentionally or recklessly
• The defendant's conduct caused the victim severe emotional distress that could be expected to adversely affect their mental health
• The defendant's conduct caused the distress

One example of IIED might be a situation where someone repeatedly yells insults at another person in front of an audience, causing them severe emotional distress. Another example might be a situation where someone threatens to harm another person in the future, causing them to experience significant anxiety and fear.

These examples illustrate the concept of IIED because they involve intentional or reckless behavior that causes severe emotional distress to another person. In both cases, the behavior is considered outrageous and goes beyond what would be considered acceptable in normal social interactions.

There are a few possible defenses that a defendant might use in an IIED case. For example, if the plaintiff gave consent to the defendant to engage in the behavior, then the conduct may not be considered outrageous. Additionally, if the behavior occurred in a situation where it might be considered normal or appropriate, then the prima facie claim may be negated.

It's important to note that different jurisdictions may have different definitions and applications of IIED. Some jurisdictions may expand IIED liability by modifying the prima facie case, while others may have more restrictive interpretations of the tort.

In recent years, there has been a trend towards limiting IIED liability in certain situations. For example, in the case of Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court signaled a move away from imposing IIED liability in cases where the behavior in question relates to matters of public concern. This is because there is a concern that allowing IIED claims in these situations could infringe on First Amendment rights to free speech and thought.