CK • Washington.   Ein Waffenhändler verkaufte einem Ausländer keine Waf­fe, weil er das Gesetz missverstand. Der schockierte Kunde verklagte ihn auf Scha­densersatz wegen emotionaler Schmerzen. In Ahmed Eldib v. Bass Pro Out­door World LLC folgte am 17. Juli 2016 die Revisions­ent­schei­dung, die ihm mit einer lehrreichen Begründung vom Bundes­berufungs­ge­richt des vier­ten Bezirks der USA in Richmond die Vergeltung versagte. Zuerst erklärte das Ge­richt kurz die Anspruchsmerkmale des Torts von emotional Distress:

In Virginia, to establish liability for intentional infliction of emo­tio­nal distress, a plaintiff must prove: "(1) the wrong­do­er's conduct was intentional or reckless; (2) the conduct was out­rageous and in­to­le­ra­ble; (3) there was a causal connection between the wrong­do­er's con­duct and the emotional dis­tress; and (4) the emo­tio­nal dis­tress was severe." Harris v. Kreutzer, 624 SE2d 24, 33 (Va. 2006). To satisfy the second element, it is not enough that the con­duct is "[i]n­sen­si­tive and demeaning"; rather, the conduct must be "so out­ra­geous in cha­racter, and so extreme in degree, as to go be­yond all pos­sible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as at­ro­cious, and ut­ter­ly in­to­le­rable in a civilized community."

Der United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit entschied gegen den Kläger, weil die Verkaufsweigerung does not rise above the level of "mere in­sults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other tri­via­li­ties," Gaiters v. Lynn, 831 F2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, the com­ments were not "manifestly disparaging or demeaning" of Eldib's ethni­ci­ty or national ori­gin. Gaiters, 831 F2d at 54. Für eine ärgerliche Erfah­rung gibt es kein Schmer­zens­geld.