is that what you think IIED is?
Oh heavens, no! That's what
you think intentional infliction of emotional distress is, going by your pleadings.
After reading your Complaint, I went back and read the posts you referenced in it.. On the off-chance your case survives all the prodedural errors you have made (and there are a lot more I won't discuss here), the allegations are never going to survive an analysis under
Womack.
The elements of IIED in Virginia are:
(1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless;
(2) the conduct was outrageous and intolerable;
(3) there was a causal connection between the wrongdoer's conduct and the emotional distress; and
(4) the emotional distress was severe.
Harris v. Kreutzer, 624 S.E.2d 24, 33 (Va. 2008 ),
citing Womack v. Eldridge, 210 S.E.2d 145, 148 (Va. 1974).
In
Harris, the supreme court sustained a demurrer in an action brought by a woman with traumatic brain injury against an adverse examiner.--a doctor hired by a defending inurance company to examine her when she brought suit regarding the accident that had caused her injury. Harris alleged the examining physician had been hostile and abusive to her during the examinination and that had caused emotional distress.
As to the second element, the
Harris court wrote:
In her motion for judgment, Harris claims that Dr. Kreutzer "verbally abused [her], raised his voice to her, caused her to break down into tears ..., stated she was `putting on a show,' and accused her of being a faker and malingerer." Harris contends this conduct was outrageous and intolerable. Assuming Dr. Kreutzer did all Harris alleges, we find his conduct was not "beyond all possible bounds of decency" or "utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Insensitive and demeaning conduct does not equate to outrageous behavior as set by our caselaw. Harris therefore failed to allege facts sufficient to meet the Womack standard for outrageous and intolerable conduct.
Harris, 624 S..E.2d at 33-34 (internal citations omitted).
Your allegations are even less outrageous than those made by Harris. In addition, the allegedly abusive statements made to Harris were made to her in person, when she was to some extent under the control of Dr. Kreutzer because she was under an obligation to be examined by him. So her situation was much worse than yours.
As to the fourth element, you are in even worse shape. The
Harris court again:
Furthermore, Harris failed to plead facts sufficient to support the severity element. In her motion for judgment, Harris alleged she suffered severe psychological trauma and mental anguish affecting her mental and physical well-being. Symptoms of her anguish include nightmares, difficulty sleeping, extreme loss of self-esteem and depression, requiring additional psychological treatment and counseling. In addition, she claims to have suffered mortification, humiliation, shame, disgrace, and injury to reputation.
As we explained in Russo, liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress "arises only when the emotional distress is extreme, and only where the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it." In that case, we held that a plaintiff complaining of nervousness, sleep deprivation, stress and its physical symptoms, withdrawal from activities, and inability to concentrate at work failed to allege a type of extreme emotional distress that is so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. Harris alleges nearly identical symptoms in the case at bar and fails to allege injuries that "no reasonable person could be expected to endure." As a result, she fails to allege facts sufficient to satisfy the fourth element of the Womack test.
Harris, 624 S.E.2d at 34 (internal citations omitted).
Not only have you alleged none of the physical manifestations of severe distress alleged in
Harris, the evidence will show you have spent months posting here giving as good as you got. That is not the conduct of someone with
severe emotional distress. That is the conduct of someone who wants to win an internet argument in court. That is the conduct of a lolcow.
ETA: fixed a citation
ETA2: fixed an element number
