Womack v. Eldridge
Citation: 215 Va. 338 (1974)
Facts
Eldridge, a private investigator, obtained Womack’s photograph under false pretenses (misrepresenting herself as Womack’s friend) and gave it to authorities to be used in a photo lineup identifying a child molester. Womack was cleared but suffered severe emotional distress from being connected to such a crime.
Issue
Can a plaintiff recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress when the defendant did not intend to harm the plaintiff but did intend the act that caused harm?
Holding
Yes. The Virginia Supreme Court adopted the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and held that the defendant’s outrageous conduct — obtaining the photo under false pretenses and using it to implicate Womack in a crime — could support IIED even without physical injury.
Rule
IIED elements (Virginia): Plaintiff must show: (1) wrongdoer’s conduct was intentional or reckless, (2) the conduct was outrageous and intolerable in civilized community, (3) the conduct caused emotional distress to the plaintiff, and (4) the resulting emotional distress was severe. Physical injury is not required.
Significance
- Virginia’s leading case recognizing IIED as an independent tort
- Adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 framework
- The “outrageous” conduct requirement is the central limiting principle — not all offensive or hurtful conduct qualifies; it must be beyond all reasonable bounds of decency
- Shows that IIED does not require direct harm to the plaintiff — using plaintiff’s identity to falsely connect them to a crime satisfies the outrageous conduct element