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.