WOMACK V. ELDRIDGE 215 Va. 338, 210 S.E.2d 145 (1974) CASE BRIEF

WOMACK V. ELDRIDGE

215 Va. 338, 210 S.E.2d 145 (1974)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Womack (P) appealed an order that granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict to Eldridge (D), a private investigator, in an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

FACTS: Eldridge (D) was an investigator for attorneys. Siefert and his attorney hired her to obtain a photograph of Womack (P) to be used as evidence for the trial of Seifert, who was charged with sexual molestation of two young boys. D went to P's home and after he let her in, she told him that she was writing an article on Skateland for the newspaper and wanted to take his picture. P was a coach at Skateland, and he readily consented to the picture. The picture was shown by Seifert's counsel to the two boys and they were asked if he was the one who molested them. The boys replied that he was not. The opposing counsel (Commonwealth) asked to see the photograph and requested information about the person in it, which was given. P's photograph did not resemble Seifert and the only excuse for taking the photograph was that he was in Skateland when Seifert was arrested. However, the offenses alleged did not occur in Skateland. The Commonwealth then sent a detective to P's home and said that he needed to appear at trial or he would be summoned. P agreed to go voluntarily. As a witness, P testified as to the circumstances under which the photo was taken, and said that he had not molested any children and knew nothing about the charges against Seifert. P was questioned several times by police and was summoned before the grand jury but was never called. P testified that he suffered great shock, distress, and nervousness because of D's fraud and deceit. He suffered anxiety as to what people would think of him and feared that he would be accused of molesting boys. He was also unable to sleep. While testifying he became emotional and incoherent. The jury returned a verdict for P in the amount of $45,000. The trial court set aside the verdict non obstante veredicto on the ground that there could be no recovery for emotional distress in the absence of 'physical damage or other bodily harm.'

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner