not legal advice - That is probably fine. As long as it is not reasonably foreseeable to cause bodily harm or emotional distress. Better off not testing that line though.
Highly unlikely. Emotional distress needs to rise to a very high level before it is something you’re likely to win in court.
The test usually involves something like showing that the person is SO emotionally distressed that they cannot function normally like they used to. Like can’t sleep, work, etc.
So not really a risk of that happening from the glitter/stink bomb stuff. MAYBE if the stink bomb caused like a crazy allergic reaction or
something, but even then you’d have to prove that it was reasonably foreseeable that the allergic reaction would occur and that Marc knew/or should have known that it was likely to happen. At that point, it would honestly make more sense to sue the stink bomb manufacturer for strict product liability. Instead of Marc Rober.
I may be wrong, but I thought her claim was more akin to invasion of privacy, not a pure emotional distress claim. You can tag emotional distress along with another claim—it’s the standalone distress claim that’s almost impossible to win.
185
u/SlowDownHotSauce 5d ago
not legal advice - That is probably fine. As long as it is not reasonably foreseeable to cause bodily harm or emotional distress. Better off not testing that line though.