There must be a threshold of harm, though, right? I mean, if they would have put her in a bad mood, no big deal. If they thought they'd only put her in a bad mood, are they on the hook for suicide?

If they put her in a bad mood, there still might be harm. It depends if their behavior could be categorized as intentional infliction of emotional distress, which requires extreme and outrageous behavior. For negligent infliction of emotional distress the plaintiff needs to make a showing of actual physical damages. Death meets that threshold.

There must be a threshold of harm, though, right? I mean, if they would have put her in a bad mood, no big deal. If they thought they'd only put her in a bad mood, are they on the hook for suicide?

We are really getting into the heart of tort law here. Your culpability, or liability, depends on what you should or could reasonably foresee as the consequences of your actions. As for the bad mood question: most tort cases involve defendants who *didn't* foresee the harm they caused (that's why it's a tort and not a crime), but they should have. Perhaps in this case they hectored and goaded her mercilessly; perhaps it was obvious that she was mentally unstable. So it could be reasonably foreseeable that a mentally unstable woman would commit suicide if forced to do a horrible thing.

I'm not saying, of course, that her claims have merit, just that they don't seem legally unjustifiable to me at first glance.

Rita just hit Category 5.

But my confusion, Wolfram is -- sure, they might have known they were going to cause her harm. But teensy little harm. Turns out she commits suicide instead of posting in LJ. Do the plaintiffs have to prove it was evident she was going to react over the threshold, if the defendants maintain there was no reason to expect it, since the stimulus would provoke reactions way below it in "normal" folks, and they couldn't tell she wasn't one of them.

eta: Never mind -- I think bon's cleared it up for me.

There's a rumor it's Sophia's birthday. Felicitations, Sophia!

oy. dumbass on craigslist posting about how credit checks are going to cause the downfall of society and credit card companies always lose his payments on purpose so they can get late fees and that is why he is going to be homeless and you people all suck for doing credit checks.

Dude. I know. The world is totally out to get you.

goes back to apartment hunting

That reminds me...I should have gotten my statement already. Guess I should look it up online and send in a check....

reminds me to go list things on craigslist.

eta: Never mind -- I think bon's cleared it up for me.

I think you're asking whether the level of harm must be foreseeable. IOW, if it was foreseeable that they'd hurt her feelings, does that meet the foreseeable requirement if she then goes ahead and offs herself. My gut is to say that the level of harm should be foreseeable, but in tort law if your plaintiff is Mr. Glass and you push him down and he breaks every bone in his body, you're liable even if that harm wasn't foreseeable. So, I'm not sure. Bon bon?

Perhaps in this case they hectored and goaded her mercilessly; perhaps it was obvious that she was mentally unstable. So it could be reasonably foreseeable that a mentally unstable woman would commit suicide if forced to do a horrible thing.

Hm. This would make the internets a most liable place to be. Someone should warn the good folks at Fandom Wank.