• Billiam
    link
    114 months ago

    I’m not a lawyer either, but it’s fun to pretend like I am one when arguing on the internet 😁

    In order to prevail on a claim for deliberate infliction of emotional anguish, you need to show three elements to the court: that the conduct was (1) extreme and outrageous, (2) intentional or reckless, and (3) causes you severe emotional suffering. See District of Columbia v. Tulin, 994 A.2d 788 (D.C. 2010).

    Based on the above, I think he would fail at number 1- a mistake of entering numbers on a website does not constitute “extreme and outrageous” conduct. As for point (2) he obviously loses at the “intentional” part, though there is a question as to whether not correcting the mistake for two days is “reckless.” He might win on point (3)- but seeing as how he would need to prove all three elements I don’t see him winning on this allegation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      20
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      id personally thing any mistake when dealing with that quantity of money is extreme and outrageous

      and 2 would be in the reckless clause not the intentional

      • Billiam
        link
        34 months ago

        Unfortunately, that means you’ve left no room for honest mistakes, which is an irrational notion. People are going to make mistakes. Some of them are going to involve mind-boggling sums of money. That doesn’t make it either extreme or outrageous per se.

        The lottery drawing was on Saturday night. The website’s error was corrected on Monday, the first business day after it was discovered. Does that constitute “reckless”? I don’t think a reasonable person could conclude so.

        • @candybrie
          link
          34 months ago

          Not checking your website when the numbers go “live” to make sure it correctly updated seems pretty reckless to me. If thousands of people are going to be viewing these changes, you at least take a peek when you update it.