Page:McQuay v. Guntharp.pdf/2

Rh should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) the conduct was "extreme and outrageous," was "beyond all possible bounds of decency," and was "utterly intolerable in a civilized community"; (3) the actions of the defendant were the cause of the plaintiffs distress; and (4) the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.
 * 1) T –  – . – The type of conduct that meets the standard for outrage must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
 * 2) T –  – . – The supreme court gives a narrow view to the tort of outrage and requires clear-cut proof to establish the elements in outrage cases; merely describing the conduct as outrageous does not make it so; clear-cut proof, however, does not mean proof greater than a preponderance of the evidence.
 * 3) A – . – Although appellees raised the issue of the applicability of the statute of limitations pertaining to medical injury in their motion to dismiss, the record did not reflect that the trial court ever ruled on the issue, and, accordingly, the supreme court did not address the argument on appeal.
 * 4) T –  –  – . – Appellants' complaint demonstrated sufficient facts to support a claim for outrage separate and apart from a claim for battery where, among other things, appellants were patients of appellee-physician, who, during their physical examinations, improperly touched, examined, and fondled their breasts; where appellants specifically pleaded that the trauma of having a doctor, whom each had trusted, fondle their breasts in a sexually suggestive manner had caused them to be less trusting of physicians in general; and where two appellant-husbands asserted that they had suffered a loss of consortium of their wives as a result of appellee-physician's actions; the trial court erred in characterizing the cause of action as constituting the tort of battery.
 * 5) T –  – . – The nature of the physician-patient relationship and the nature of the allegations presented by appellants made appropriate a suit for the tort of outrage; a patient entrusts his or her body and sense of dignity to a physician; looking to the facts alleged in the complaint, it was