3. Assume that the plaintiff did not suffer physical harm as a result of the defendant's conduct, but did suffer severe emotional distress. If the plaintiff asserts a claim against the defendant based on intentional infliction of emotional distress, will the plaintiff prevail?

To establish a prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove (i) that there was an act by the defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) that there was an intent on the part of the defendant to cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, or recklessness as to the effect of the defendant's conduct; (iii) causation; and (iv) damages in the form of severe emotional distress.

A is correct. The plaintiff would prevail because she suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the defendant's conduct. Under the facts at issue, the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress based on the defendant's actions. Further, the defendant's conduct would likely be considered extreme and outrageous based on the aggressive and threatening means he used to collect the debt, particularly in light of the plaintiff's health. In fact, courts have identified «extreme business conduct» by debt/bill collectors as an illustration of extreme and outrageous conduct for the purposes of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The defendant's conduct here would fit this classification. Likewise, the defendant's conduct could be understood as intended to cause the plaintiff emotional distress, given that the plaintiff's mother attempted to calmly resolve the situation and the defendant persisted being confrontational. To this end, the plaintiff would prevail on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, because the defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct with an intent to inflict severe emotional distress on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress as a result.

B is incorrect. The plaintiff would not be barred from recovery on the basis that the bill for medical services was valid and past due. Courts consider «extreme business conduct» an example of conduct which is extreme and outrageous, despite being legal. To this end, the fact that the plaintiff actually owed money would be irrelevant to her ability to recover. Further, the defendant's loud and confrontational methods and threats of criminal charges here would likely be considered extreme and outrageous.

C is incorrect. The plaintiff would not be barred from recovery on the basis that she did not suffer physical harm as a result of the defendant's conduct. Although physical harm can result from intentional infliction of emotional distress and can provide evidence of damages, it is not necessary for a plaintiff to prevail. Under the facts as presented, the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress based on conduct by the defendant which would likely be considered extreme and outrageous and intended to cause emotional distress. Therefore, the plaintiff would likely prevail on intentional infliction of emotional distress.

D is incorrect. The plaintiff would not be barred from recovery on the basis that the defendant's conduct created almost no risk of physical harm to the plaintiff. It is not a threshold requirement of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress that the defendant's conduct created a risk of physical harm to the plaintiff. Further, while manifestations of physical harm can be cited as evidence of severe emotional distress, no actual physical harm to plaintiff or risk of physical harm is necessary to prevail on an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Instead, the plaintiff is required to show that the defendant engaged in extreme and/or outrageous conduct with an intent, which succeeded, in inflicting severe emotional distress.