Womack v. Eldridge
215 Va. 338 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cause of action exists for severe emotional distress, unaccompanied by physical injury, when the distress is caused by another's intentional or reckless conduct that is also extreme and outrageous.
Facts:
- Rosalie Eldridge, an investigator, was hired by an attorney representing Richard Seifert, a man charged with child molestation.
- To obtain a photograph of Danny Lee Womack, Eldridge went to his home and falsely claimed to be a newspaper reporter writing an article about Skateland, where Womack worked as a coach.
- Under this false pretense, Womack consented to having his photograph taken for the supposed article.
- Eldridge delivered the photograph to Seifert's attorney, who then showed it to the two young victims during a preliminary hearing, asking if Womack was the perpetrator.
- The boys stated that Womack was not the person who molested them.
- Womack did not resemble Seifert, and the only connection was that Seifert's arrest occurred at Skateland, though the crimes did not.
- As a result of his photograph being used in the criminal case, Womack was questioned by police, summoned to court multiple times, and suffered severe shock, anxiety, and mental distress.
Procedural Posture:
- Danny Lee Womack sued Rosalie Eldridge in a Virginia trial court.
- The trial court struck the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Womack, awarding him $45,000 in compensatory damages.
- The trial court judge set aside the jury's verdict and entered a judgment non obstante veredicto (judgment notwithstanding the verdict) in favor of Eldridge.
- The trial court reasoned that there could be no recovery for emotional distress without accompanying physical injury.
- Womack, as the appellant, was granted a writ of error to appeal the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a person subject to liability for intentionally or recklessly causing severe emotional distress to another through extreme and outrageous conduct, even in the absence of any bodily injury?
Opinions:
Majority - I’Anson, C.J.
Yes. A cause of action will lie for emotional distress, unaccompanied by physical injury, provided four elements are shown. The court adopts the modern view, reflected in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, which recognizes the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court distinguished prior Virginia cases that required physical injury because those cases involved negligent conduct, whereas the conduct here was alleged to be willful, wanton, and deceitful. To succeed on this claim, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless; (2) the conduct was outrageous and intolerable; (3) there was a causal connection between the conduct and the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe. The court concluded that reasonable people could disagree as to whether Eldridge's conduct was extreme and outrageous, making it a question for the jury to decide.
Analysis:
This landmark Virginia case formally recognized the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). By adopting the four-part test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court established a clear framework for a cause of action that does not require physical injury, a departure from the traditional rule. This decision aligns Virginia with the majority of jurisdictions and provides a remedy for severe emotional harm caused by egregious conduct, while aiming to limit frivolous litigation over mere hurt feelings by requiring the conduct to be 'outrageous and intolerable' and the distress 'severe'. Future cases in Virginia would apply this four-part test to determine liability for IIED.
Unlock the full brief for Womack v. Eldridge