Womack v. Eldridge

Supreme Court of Virginia · 1974 · Torts

TortsIntentional infliction of emotional distressemotional distressIIEDoutrageous conductsevere distressintentional or reckless conductno physical injury required

Facts

Defendant, an investigator employed by a criminal defendant and his attorney, went to plaintiff's home, falsely claimed she was a newspaper writer, and obtained plaintiff's photograph by deceit. She delivered the photograph to defense counsel, who showed it to two boys in a sexual molestation proceeding to ask whether plaintiff was the molester; the Commonwealth's Attorney then obtained plaintiff's name and address from defendant and had plaintiff brought to court. Plaintiff was later questioned by police and summoned in connection with the criminal matter several times. Plaintiff testified that defendant's conduct caused him shock, distress, nervousness, anxiety, and inability to sleep, and his wife testified that he experienced great shock and mental depression.

Issue

Whether a person who, by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another may be held liable for that emotional distress even when no bodily injury is shown.

Rule

A cause of action lies for emotional distress unaccompanied by physical injury when four elements are shown: (1) the defendant's conduct was intentional or reckless, meaning the defendant specifically intended to inflict emotional distress or intended the conduct and knew or should have known emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous and intolerable, offending generally accepted standards of decency and morality; (3) there was a causal connection between the conduct and the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Richmond, Marla Keene, a debt collector for Baycrest Recovery Group, falsely told Omar Price that she was compiling a neighborhood safety newsletter and asked him to pose for a photograph. She then gave the photo to a client who used it at a public tenant meeting to suggest Omar might be the person vandalizing cars, even though Marla had no information connecting him to the incidents. Omar developed severe anxiety, sleeplessness, and emotional collapse, but no bodily injury.

If Omar sues for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is the strongest argument that his claim may proceed?

Explanation. The governing rule recognizes a cause of action for emotional distress unaccompanied by physical injury when four elements are shown: intentional or reckless conduct, outrageous and intolerable conduct, causation, and severe emotional distress. Bodily injury is not required. The facts support an argument that deceitfully procuring Omar's photo and using it to implicate him in wrongdoing could be found outrageous and likely to cause serious distress.