The issue is whether M. Bega’s conduct was outrageous and intolerable. This element is satisfied when the outrageousness requirement "is aimed at limiting frivolous suits and avoiding litigation in situations where only bad manners and mere hurt feelings are involved." Id. "It is insufficient for a defendant to have acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal." Russo v. White 241 Va. 23. Rather, "liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Id. Our client likely does not have a viable claim because even if the conduct of Mr. Bega was mean it has not reach the level of outrageous, intolerable or extreme. In Harris v. Kreutzer, 271 Va. 188, the court has to consider if the action done by the doctor was outrageous. The patient sued the clinical psychologist for medical malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress. During the examination verbally abused her, raised his voice to her, stated she was "putting on a show," and accused her of being a faker and malingerer despite knowing she suffered from post-traumatic …show more content…
Russo had alleged that White had intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her when, after she dated him one time, he called her hundreds of times and hung-up the phone when she answered. She even alleged that he knew when she was inside the house or not. The court decides that “it was more than reasonable for her to feel that White was likely to escalate the matter to the point of violence”. Id. The court agrees with the plaintiff and assume, without deciding, that defendant 's conduct rose to the level of outrageousness required to support the cause of action even if the court held that there was no intentional infliction of emotional