Case: Homer v Long

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Defendant causes harm to a 3rd person, which upset the plaintiff.
Therapist seduces married woman. Husband suing therapist.

• Court first considers if Dr. Long conduct was extreme and outrageous as to Mrs.
Homer?
○ Yes, because it violates standards
• Was the conduct outrageous or extreme as to Mr. Long?
○ Court suggests ways where it could have been outrageous to him
§ If he was present
§ Restatement 2nd section 56: if he could show he was present and the
distress caused physical harm
§ If he was in a doctor-patient relationship with Mr. Homer as well
○ Rationale behind the presence requirement
§ Geographic or temporal proximity helps
§ Since he was not present, court cannot conclude therapist intended to
cause harm to Mr. Long
□ What if, unbeknownst to Dr. Long, Homer was present? - the
unknown presence wouldn’t cut it for intentional tort
• Restatement (third) § 45 Comment (1)
• In restatement 2nd, there are 2 basis for showing intentional emotional harm,
3rd restatement dropped one of those. 2nd restatement had offered it, but no court
had ever taken it.