TORTS Womack v. Eldridge Court: Supreme Court of Virginia (215 Va. 338, 210 S.E.

2d 145) Year: 1974 Parties (role): Danny Lee Womack, Appellant (plaintiff); Rosalie Eldridge, Respondent (defendant) Page in text: 910-912 Procedural History: Plaintiff sued defendant to recover compensatory and punitive damages for mental shock and distress allegedly caused by the defendants willful, wanton, malicious, fraudulent and deceitful acts and conduct toward him. The question of punitive damages was stricken by trial court. Jury found for the plaintiff in the amount of $45,000. Trial court set aside the verdicton the ground that there could be no recovery for emotional distress in the absence of physical damage or other bodily harm. Facts of Case: Defendant private investigator made a misrepresentation to plaintiff in order to take his picture. The picture was used by an attorney in connection with his defense of a child molestation case against another person during preliminary hearings in that case. Plaintiff was not associated with the child molestation case; he was only present at Skateland where Mr. Seifert had been arrested in regards to child molestation (despite the fact that the offenses alleged did not occur there). The Commonwealths Attorney inquired about the name and address of the man in the picture, and subsequently required him to testify on several occasions in the child molestation case. Plaintiff alleged that he suffered emotional distress as a result of his picture being taken. Legal Issue: Is one who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another subject to liability for such emotional distress absent and bodily injury? Did the trial court err in granting a motion for judgment not withstanding the evidence? Rule: Courts in other jurisdictions are not in accord on this issue. Most, however, have held that there may be a recovery against one who by his extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes another severe emotional distress. Restatement (Second) of Torts, 46 at 71: (1) One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is

subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm. Comment (i): also covers situations where person knows that distress is certain, or substantially certain, to result from his conduct. Most cases that have decided that there is liability for emotional distress absent physical injury have done so on the basis that the act was intentional. Holding: Yes, liability for emotional distress, absent physical injury, may exist. Yes, the trial court erred in granting a judgment n.o.v. Whether the defendants actions were outrageous is a question of material fact for the jury to determine. Because they determined as such, their verdict is reinstated. Reasoning: We adopt the view, that liability for emotional distress, absent physical injury, will result if four elements are satisfied: (1) wrongdoers conduct is intentional (purposely or knowingly) or reckless; (2) the conduct is outrageous and intolerable in that it offends against the generally accepted standards of decency and morality; (3) there is a causal connection between the conduct and the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe. It is for the jury to decide whether the defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous. In the case at bar, reasonable men may disagree on this issue, thus the questions presented were for a jury to determine. ?SC of VA concluded that because the plaintiff had nothing to do with the child molestation case, and he had good reason to fear being accused of child molestation if his name got out, the jury could have come to the conclusion that the defendants actions were outrageous. Judgment: The judgment of the trial court is reversed, the jury verdict reinstated, and final judgment entered for the plaintiff.