Hey, quick question! I was wondering if it’s true that you can’t sue for emotional distress if you consented to the conduct in the first place? Like, for example, if a 17-year-old sexted a 20-year-old consensually and the age of consent in their state is 16, could they still claim emotional distress? I’m curious if the court would think the behavior wasn’t “outrageous” enough, or if the fact that there was no coercion would make it invalid for a claim… Anyone know how this would work?
Yeah, I think consent definitely plays a big role here. If the 17-year-old wasn’t coerced and the behavior wasn’t harmful or manipulative, it probably wouldn’t meet the outrageousness requirement for emotional distress claims. Courts usually need really extreme situations to move forward with those.
@Lennon
That makes sense. So if it wasn’t a case of abuse or anything like that, it’s pretty unlikely they’d have a case, right?
Val said:
@Lennon
That makes sense. So if it wasn’t a case of abuse or anything like that, it’s pretty unlikely they’d have a case, right?
Exactly! Without any coercion or manipulation, I don’t think they’d have much to go on for an emotional distress claim. It’s really all about proving that the behavior was outrageous in the eyes of the court.
Yeah, I agree with DEF. In Pennsylvania, consent really can negate an emotional distress claim, especially when there’s no harm or coercion. The courts would likely just dismiss the case. Plus, if it wasn’t abusive, it wouldn’t qualify as outrageous behavior.
@Noel
So is it just about the lack of harm or is there more to it? Like, can someone still get emotional distress damages even if they consented?
Jessie said:
@Noel
So is it just about the lack of harm or is there more to it? Like, can someone still get emotional distress damages even if they consented?
It really depends on the situation, but generally, if you’ve consented and weren’t harmed in a severe way, it’s hard to get emotional distress damages. The courts really want to see something extreme before granting those.
This kind of makes sense to me. I feel like if the interaction was consensual and the 17-year-old wasn’t manipulated, it’s harder to argue emotional distress. I also think the age of consent plays a huge role here too, especially since it’s 16 in the state you’re talking about.
@Jules
Right? Consent laws really come into play here, and since the 17-year-old wasn’t coerced, it makes it even less likely that emotional distress would hold up in court.
Sounds like consent really is the key here. If both parties were okay with what happened, and nothing was abusive or coercive, it just doesn’t seem like a case for emotional distress.
Zenith said:
Sounds like consent really is the key here. If both parties were okay with what happened, and nothing was abusive or coercive, it just doesn’t seem like a case for emotional distress.
Exactly! If there was no harm, manipulation, or coercion, it just wouldn’t be considered outrageous enough for a lawsuit. The courts are looking for something way more extreme.
I’m still a little confused about the emotional distress claim. If there was no harm done, would the person just have to prove that they were emotionally affected? Or would it still be dismissed because they consented?
@Ray
Good question! If they consented and weren’t harmed, it’s unlikely they’d even get to prove emotional distress. It would likely be dismissed because consent really does negate the claim in this case.