What is the Kansas statute of limitations for Intentional infliction of emotional distress?  2 years.

In a 2004 case against the Mercy Health Center of Manhattan, Hallam v. Mercy Health Ctr. of Manhattan, Inc., 278 Kan. 339, 339, 97 P.3d 492, 493 (2004) it was claimed that the defendant harvested the deceased eyes and bone marrow for monetary gain and to comply with quotas without proper consent. The court said that the tort of outrage is the same tort as the intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the time limit to sue is two years from the event. This decision applies the statute K.S.A. 60–513(a), stating:

“(a) The following actions shall be brought within two years:

(4) An action for injury to the rights of another, not arising on contract, and not herein enumerated. 

This tort was formally recognized in Kansas in 1974 in the Dawson v. Associates Financial Services case where they held the statute of limitations is two years, although the earliest recognition of this type of action was in 1937 with Alderman v. Ford about the medical practitioner’s mishandling of a corpse. The Dawson case involved a debtor filing a claim against a creditor for harassment where the court indicated there was evidence that the harassment aggravated the plaintiff’s physical condition, so the plaintiff sued asking the court to adopt the Restatement of Torts Second section 46(1). (note: later Congress adopted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in 1977 to deal with abusive collection practices). The plaintiff in Dawson was afflicted with Multiple Sclerosis and was susceptible to emotional injury, a fact which carried great weight with the court. Later courts have held that just acting in a discourteous manner in pursuing legal rights is not outrageous conduct. The courts have been reluctant to extend this claim to the employment setting, although it applied it to a former’s employers conduct that got out of hand in Taiwo vs. Vu a 1991 case.

“In order to prevail in a claim of intentionally causing emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) The conduct of the defendant was intentional, or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff; (2) the conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) there was a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s mental distress; and (4) the plaintiff’s mental distress was extreme and severe. Taiwo v. Vu, 249 Kan. 585, 592, 822 P.2d 1024 (1991) (citing Roberts v. Saylor, 230 Kan. 289, 292–93, 637 P.2d 1175 [1981] ).” Valadez v. Emmis Commc’ns, 290 Kan. 472, 476, 229 P.3d 389, 394 (2010).

The court pointed out that the tort has two requirements including the defendant conduct was extreme and the emotional distress inflicted is severe and explained that such conduct might be privileged. Later cases have outlined what conduct constitutes the tort of outrage, and you will find if you read the cases the court tolerate a lot of bad conduct before it gets outraged.