Womack v. Eldridge

Citations: 215 Va. 338; 210 S.E.2d 145; 1974 Va. LEXIS 288Docket: Record 730653

Court: Supreme Court of Virginia; December 2, 1974; Virginia; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of Womack v. Eldridge, the Virginia Supreme Court addressed the viability of a cause of action for emotional distress without accompanying physical injury. The court affirmed that such a claim can exist if the conduct is intentional, reckless, outrageous, and intolerable, and if the emotional distress is severe. The case originated when plaintiff Danny Lee Womack sought damages for mental distress allegedly caused by defendant Rosalie Eldridge's deceitful actions; she acquired his photograph under false pretenses to use in a criminal defense case involving her employer, Richard E. Seifert, who faced serious charges of sexual molestation.

Womack consented to have his picture taken, believing it was for a newspaper article. However, the photograph was misused in court, leading to Womack being summoned by authorities after it was presented to witnesses in an attempt to identify him as the perpetrator. The jury initially awarded Womack $45,000, but the trial court later overturned this verdict, citing the absence of physical injury as a barrier to recovery for emotional distress. The Supreme Court granted Womack's writ of error to determine whether extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress could warrant liability, even without physical harm. The case highlights the legal considerations surrounding emotional distress claims and the responsibilities of individuals engaged in investigative practices.

Plaintiff testified regarding the circumstances under which defendant obtained his photograph, asserting he had not molested any children and was unaware of the charges against Seifert. Following this, he was questioned multiple times by police and summoned to testify before a grand jury, although he was not called. During Seifert's trial, plaintiff experienced significant emotional distress, shock, and anxiety due to defendant’s deceitful actions in using his photograph in court. This distress affected his mental health, causing sleep issues and incoherence during testimony. His wife corroborated his experience of shock and depression.

The court noted that the issue of recovery for emotional distress without physical injury has not been previously decided in this jurisdiction. Citing the case of Hughes Moore, the court distinguished between negligent conduct, which typically does not allow for recovery absent physical impact, and willful or intentional torts, which may permit recovery for emotional distress even without physical injury. The court referenced the Restatement (Second) of Torts, stating that extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress can lead to liability. It was noted that recovery is often allowed when the defendant's actions are intentional or recklessly disregard the likelihood of causing distress, aligning with accepted moral standards. The case of Awtrey was deemed distinguishable as it involved negligence rather than willful misconduct.

A cause of action for emotional distress without physical injury requires four elements: (1) the wrongdoer's conduct must be intentional or reckless, demonstrating a purpose to inflict emotional distress or an awareness that such distress would likely result; (2) the conduct must be outrageous and intolerable, violating accepted standards of decency and morality; (3) there must be a causal link between the conduct and the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress must be severe. The determination of whether the conduct is extreme and outrageous is typically for the court, while the jury evaluates the degree of severity of the distress. In this case, there was disagreement among reasonable individuals regarding the extremity of the defendant’s conduct and the severity of the plaintiff’s distress, making it a jury question. Evidence suggested that the defendant maliciously obtained the plaintiff's photograph to aid her employers in a criminal defense, without regard for the distress it could cause the innocent plaintiff. The defendant's argument regarding jury instruction errors and excessive damages was not considered due to the lack of cross-error assignment. Consequently, the original court's judgment was reversed, the jury's verdict reinstated, and a final judgment for the plaintiff was entered. Notably, research indicates that 26 jurisdictions allow such emotional distress claims, while 7 do not.