## Facts

- Danny Lee Womack worked as a skating coach at Skateland in Lynchburg, Virginia.
- Rosalie Eldridge, a private investigator, was hired by a criminal defendant (Richard E. Seifert) and his attorney to obtain Womack’s photograph for use in Seifert’s preliminary hearing on charges of sexually molesting two boys.
- Eldridge went to Womack’s home and, by falsely claiming to be a newspaper reporter preparing an article about Skateland, asked to photograph him; Womack consented.
- Eldridge delivered the photograph to Seifert’s counsel, who showed it to the two boys to ask whether Womack was the molester; they said he was not, and the photograph was withdrawn.
- The prosecutor then sought the photograph and information about Womack; Eldridge identified Womack in open court and provided identifying details, drawing him into the molestation proceedings despite no alleged wrongdoing.
- Womack alleged that Eldridge’s deceit and resulting public association with child molestation proceedings caused severe emotional shock, distress, and reputational harm.
- At trial, the court struck Womack’s punitive damages claim; a jury awarded Womack $45,000 compensatory damages.
- The trial court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict, ruling emotional distress damages were unavailable absent physical injury; Womack appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may recover for intentional or reckless infliction of severe emotional distress without accompanying bodily injury.
2. What elements must be proven to establish liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a jury to decide if the conduct was extreme and outrageous and if the distress was severe, making judgment notwithstanding the verdict improper.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict and reinstated the jury’s $45,000 verdict for Womack.
- The court held that a cause of action exists for emotional distress unaccompanied by physical injury if specific elements are proven.
- The court ruled that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Womack, reasonable jurors could differ on whether Eldridge’s conduct was outrageous and whether Womack’s distress was severe; the jury’s verdict therefore could not be set aside on the theory that physical injury was required.

## Legal Principles

- Liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress may be imposed without bodily injury if the plaintiff proves:
  - intentional or reckless conduct;
  - conduct that is outrageous and intolerable, offending generally accepted standards of decency and morality;
  - a causal connection between the conduct and the emotional distress; and
  - severe emotional distress.
- The court has a threshold screening role to determine whether conduct may reasonably be regarded as extreme and outrageous; if reasonable persons could differ, the question goes to the jury.
- The absence of physical injury does not bar recovery when the plaintiff alleges and proves severe emotional distress caused by intentional or reckless, extreme, and outrageous conduct.

## Conclusion

Virginia recognized intentional infliction of emotional distress as an independent tort without a physical-injury requirement and reinstated a jury award where a private investigator’s deceitful procurement and courtroom use of a photograph could be found extreme and outrageous, causally linked to severe distress.


Womack v. Eldridge, 215 Va. 338, 210 S.E.2d 145 (Va. 1974)