WPC+  xZp`4Y 5&.K?~ODBGƋ3SKe3C=%>2v'KbI C,-5aŧnq`r>-Kaz9J1*2n7y_%ނ|KRb=Z' ,mOe+~ԓ`[,\,[ijLCn<-fވuoXtgxyjEjXj-#%uDvK[{l??^flҊDO ÇA . ґL8m6乥 =ś1U8<ξXEEGAzɺdKjݓ.[2EGh!C^~tnOYk}.]j>( X~TF~8˩ )A@3LsgG ~}оĤ`sc&Lsi)fcTo\d#!xUN % 0( 0 1m% 0C UD< H ^ Ye 1ugw4 0  0U :*d 0l$ fU:" m""#U:$U:$+%U*3%]% BQ)Q)U:n) 72)N))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 0D) D5 * * * * * AQU** 0Dl+ 0D+HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($<jj:Default ParaXXXQ\  `$Times NewRomanQXXXQ\  `$Times NewRomanQ$35;AGMU]e1I.A.1.a)(1)(a)(i)(a)($    \  `$Times NewRoman > $    4    _  XXUXXXPaXXUԀAlthoughtheplaintiffisgenerallynotrequiredtopresentexperttestimonytovalidatetheexistenceor  severityofamentalinjury,weemphasizethattheevidencemustestablishthattheplaintiffsmental TL injuryisseriousorsevere.   X Itisonlywhere[thementalinjury]isextremethattheliabilityarises.Complete   emotionaltranquilityisseldomattainableinthisworld# Pa#Pa ,andsomedegreeoftransientand   trivialemotionaldistressisapartofthepriceoflivingamongpeople.Thelaw L D intervenesonlywherethedistressissoseverethatnoreasonable[person]couldbe   expectedtoendureit.    X  Restatement(Second)ofTorts46_cmt_.j(1965).^  F# Pa##Xi`X #l'L ##37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)@q'3|x<jj:footnote texQ\  `$Times NewRomanQXXXQ\  `$Times NewRomanQ<mm:footnote refXXXQ\  `$Times NewRomanQXXXQ\  `$Times NewRomanQ,cAZ"Arial Regular  !  _XXqdXXX; XXqd;  ;  f  XqdX ;XqdXXXqd    2  ; XXqd;  ;  !Pa ;ԀInparticular,theCourtrecognizedactionsforseductionofawifeordaughterasillustrativeofthis  proposition.SeeWadsworth,8_S.W._Ԁat576.TheCourtcontendedthat themainelementofdamage,  therealinjurysustained,isthewoundtothefeelings;thelossofserviceuponwhichtheactionsare  technicallybasedbeingbutalegalfiction,andmoreimaginarythanreal.Id.f݌ F > Ќ!XUX!PaXqdXX!XU  #Xi`XXXqdG#XqdXXXi`((3$ !      0    !  _XXqdXXX; XXqd;  ;  f  XqdX ;XqdXXXqd  #Xi`XhXqdG#XUXhXi`  3  PaXXU; Pa  Pa ;ԀThedefendantscontendthatTennesseesappellatecourts haveconsistentlyrequiredexpertor  scientificmedicalproofforaplaintifftorecoverforthetortofintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress.  Thisassertionisunsupportedbythecasescitedbythedefendants.Thesecasesareillustrativeof | nothingmorethanthekindsofevidencethatmayormaynotsustainaclaimofintentionalinflictionof B : emotionaldistress.See,e.g.,Blairv.AlliedMaintenanceCorp.,756S.W.2d267(Tenn.Ct.App.1988);   Dunnv.MotoPhoto,Inc.,828S.W.2d747(Tenn.Ct.App.1981);Johnsonv.WomansHosp.,527   S.W.2d133(Tenn.Ct.App.1975);Steelev.SuperiorHomeHealthCareofChattanooga,Inc.,No. | t 03A019709CH00395(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.10,1998).Indeed,insomecasescitedbythedefendants, : 2 claimsfaileddespitetheintroductionofexpertmedicalorscientifictestimonysuggestingthatthe   standardtobesatisfiedisquiteexacting.See_Pursell_Ԁv.FirstAm._Natl_ԀBank,No.01A019411    CV00513(Tenn.Ct.App.May12,1995);_Schneibel_Ԁv._Depew_,No.03A0190204CH00134(Tenn.Ct. tl  App.Sept.15,1992).Contrarytothedefendantscontention,thesedecisionsdonotstate,nordothey 2*  amount_aggregately_,toarulerequiringexperttestimonytoestablishaclaimforintentionalinflictionof   emotionaldistress.f݌   ЌXUXPaXqdXXXU  9X+#Xi`XXXqd]#XqdXXXi`,cAZ"Arial RegularULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  b"  _XXXXAXX   Ad FILEDXXA  November15,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAx ,cAZ"Arial Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular%2A`Arial  !  _XXqdXXX; XXqd;  ;  f  XqdX ;XqdXXXqd  #Xi`XhXqdG#XCXhXi`  1  #Xi`XhXC]# XXi`;    n  ;ԀTheplaintiffsalsobroughtclaimsfornegligentinflictionofemotionaldistress,defamation,andinvasion  ofprivacy,buttheydidnotappealthelowercourtsdispositionoftheseclaims.Accordingly,wedonot  addressthem.#;  n#f݌  ЌXqdX ;XqdXXXqd   d,cAZ"Arial Regular i)(3$ !  )!dxdxabZc[C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  !  _XXXXb (4# bX  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T8kXXdd8=kXXdd=  x`[B2.jz`  `@E ` 8ttxP7 x_INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE    @  @ ATKNOXVILLE     WAYNEMILLERAND   8   )   @ FORPUBLICATION  @d ELIZABETHANNMILLER, 8   )   @  ,P   0      8   )   @ FILED :November15,1999 6  APPELLANTS,   8   ) "    0      8   )   @ #XkXXX+#XXXXkHAMBLENCIRCUIT#XkXXXC#XXXXk   V.  0      8   )   @      0      8   )   @ HON.KENDALLLAWSON   DAVIDWILLBANKS,M.D.,HAMBLEN  )   @    PEDIATRICASSOCIATES,INC.,AND  )   @ NO.E199700022SCR11CV |  MORRISTOWNHAMBLENHOSPITAL,)   @  b    0      8   )  Hl  APPELLEES.   8   )   @  .R   0      8   )   @  8  FortheAppellants     8      @ FortheAppellees  JudyPinkstonMcCarthy   8      @ DouglasL.Dutton  Knoxville,Tennessee   8      @ Knoxville,Tennessee   DennisM.McCarthy   8      @ AmyV.Hollars P"t Knoxville,Tennessee   8      @ Knoxville,Tennessee 6#Z   0      8      @ R.FranklinNorton  0      8      @ Knoxville,Tennessee  0      8      @ GaryG.Spangler  0      8      @ Knoxville,Tennessee  =kXXdXXd=OPINION  ,9P.3   REVERSEDANDREMANDED 8      @     BARKER,J.  $705   8XXdXXd8 INTRODUCTION      WegrantedthisappealtodecidewhethertheCourtofAppealserredinholding   thatexpertmedicalorscientificproofofaseriousmentalinjuryisrequiredtosupport  | theplaintiffsclaimsforintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress.Thetrialcourt PH grantedthedefendantsmotionforsummaryjudgmentbecausetheplaintiffsfailedto   haveavailableexpertprooftocorroboratetheirclaimsofhavingsustainedserious   mentalinjuries.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourtsdismissalofthecase.   Aftercarefulconsiderationoftherecordinthiscase,theapplicablelaw,andthe x argumentsoftheparties,weconcludethatexpertmedicalorscientificproofofa LD seriousmentalinjuryisgenerallynotrequiredtosupportaclaimforintentional  inflictionofemotionaldistress.Accordingly,forthereasonsherein,wereversethe  CourtofAppealsandremandthiscasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings.     STANDARDOFREVIEW  H @ A Summaryjudgmentisappropriateifthemovantsdemonstratethatnogenuine #  issuesofmaterialfactexistandthattheyareentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw. %" SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Wemusttakethestrongestviewoftheevidenceinfavor ' $ ofthenonmovants,allowallreasonableinferencesintheirfavor,anddiscardall \)T"& countervailingevidence.SeeByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,210-11(Tenn.1993). (+ $( Becauseourreviewconcernsaquestionoflawonly,thetrialcourt'sjudgmentisnot ,%* presumedcorrect,andourreviewisdenovoontherecordbeforethisCourt.See .', Bainv.Wells,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997).#Xi`XXXU#XUXXXi`  0).    $4-2 BACKGROUND    OnSeptember19,1995,ElizabethAnnMillergavebirthtoHeatherNicole   MillerattheMorristownHamblenHospitalAssociation( theHospital).Priorto  | delivery,Mrs.MillersignedaformauthorizingDr.DavidWillbanksofHamblen PH PediatricAssociates,Inc.,toprovidepostnatalexaminationsandtreatmentfor   Heather.Thenextday,theHospitaldischargedMrs.MillerbutkeptHeatherpursuant   toitspolicyofprovidingcarefor48hourstoinfantsdeliveredbycaesareansection.    EarlySeptember21,Heatherawokewithanelevatedbodytemperature,heart LD rate,andrespiratoryrate.AnursecontactedDr.WillbanksconcerningHeathers  condition.Dr.WillbankswenttotheHospital,examinedHeather,anddiagnosedher  assufferingfromDrugWithdrawalSyndrome(DWS).Dr.Willbanks,though,didnot  testHeatherforthepresenceofdrugsordiscusshisdiagnosiswithMrs.Miller.By |t contactingrelativesofMrs.Miller,theHospitalalertedHeathersparentstotheinfants H @ condition.AfterbecomingawareofHeatherscondition,WayneMiller,ElizabethAnn "  MillershusbandandHeathersfather,contactedtheHospitalbytelephoneandspoke #  withDr.Willbanks.Dr.WillbanksinformedMr.MillerthatHeatherwas indistress %" andpossiblysufferingfromsepsis,buthewouldnotelaborateinresponseto x'p $ questioningbyMr.Miller.Dr.WillbanksalsonotifiedMr.Millerthathewouldbe D)<"& performingalumbarpunctureonHeather,thoughhewouldnotexplainthepurpose +$( fortheprocedure,indicatingonlythatitwasnecessary. ,%*  Mr.MillertoldDr.Willbanksthatheandhiswifeweregoingtocome t0l). immediatelytotheHospital,andDr.Willbanksagreedtowaitforthemtoarrive.The @28+0 Millersarrivedatapproximately4:45a.m.,butDr.Willbankswasnotpresentandleft  4-2 nomessage.AnursedirectedtheMillerstothenurserywheretheyobservedHeather 5.4 lyinginacribwithanintravenousneedleprotrudingfromherscalp.Nomedical  personnelwouldanswertheMillersquestionsconcerningHeatherscondition,sothe  Millerswaiteduntilapproximately8:30a.m.forDr.Willbankstoreturn.    WhenDr.WillbanksfinallymetwiththeMillers,heexplainedthatHeatherhad 80 beenactingjitteryandcryingexcessively#Xi`XXXU#XUXXXi`.HeaskedMrs.Millerifsheusedanydrugs   duringherpregnancy.WhenMrs.Millerrespondedthatshehadoccasionallytaken   Tylenol,Dr.Willbanksinformedheroftheimportanceofansweringhonestly   concerningdruguseduringpregnancy.DespiteMrs.Millersdenials,Dr.Willbanks h` saidthathedidnotbelieveherandthathehadfrequentlyseenDWSininfants.Dr. 4, Willbanksstatedthathewaspositiveofhisdiagnosisandthathewouldcontinue  treatingHeatherforDWS.Mrs.MillerthenagreedtoDr.Willbankssrequestthatshe  takeadrugtest.   FollowingthemeetingbetweenDr.WillbanksandtheMillers,rumorsthat 0 ( Heatherwasa drugbabybegancirculatingthroughouttheHospital.AHospital ! socialworkerapproachedtheMillerslaterinthedayandquestionedthemconcerning #  theirpastdruguse,backgrounds,livingarrangements,andotherchildren.Inaddition, %" Mr.Milleroverheardtwounidentifiedpeoplediscussingthe drugbabyintheward. `'X $ HospitalnursesbegantreatingtheMillersrudely,andwhenMr.Millersparentsvisited ,)$"& theHospital,theyleftangrybelievingMrs.MillerwasresponsibleforHeathers *#( medicalproblems. ,%*  Throughouttheday,theMillersunsuccessfullysoughtinformationconcerning \0T). thedrugtestsandHeatherscondition.Atapproximately8:00p.m.,theheadnurse (2 +0 finallyinformedMr.MillerthatthedrugtestsadministeredtoMrs.MillerandHeather 3,2 camebacknegativeat11:00a.m.Thefollowingday,Dr.Toffoletto,whowasan 5.4 associateofDr.Willbanks,confirmedthenursesstatementthatthedrugtests  revealednoproblemsandinformedtheMillersthattheDWStreatmentswerebeing  continuedonlyasaprecaution.    Disregardingthenegativedrugtestresults,Dr.Willbanksreportedhis 80 suspicionsconcerningMrs.MillersallegeddrugusetotheGraingerCountyHealth   Department.Withinoneweek,asocialworkerandnursefromtheDepartmentvisited   theMillershome,interviewedtheMillers,inspectedtheirlivingarrangements,and   examinedHeatheralloverMr.Millersobjections.Whenthesocialworkerreturned h` lessthantwoweekslater,Mr.Millerreiteratedhisobjections,andthesocialworkerdid 4, notvisitagain.   TheMillerssuedDr.Willbanks,HamblenPediatricAssociates,andtheHospital  forthetortofin#Xi`XXXU%#XCXXXi`tentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress.#Xi`XXXC1#XqdXXXi`XqdXXXqdXqdXXXqd  #Xi`XhXqd#2#B2albXi`XXXi`XqdXXXi`  XCXXXqd   1      #XqdXXXC@3#albXqdXXXqdXqdXXXqd  XUXXXqdԀThedefendantsthenmoved d\ fordismissalorsummaryjudgment,whichthetrialcourtgrantedduetotheplaintiffs H @ lackofexpertevidencetosupporttheirclaimsofseriousmentalinjury.TheCourtof "  Appealsaffirmedthedecisionofthetrialcourt. #   WegrantedtheplaintiffsappealtodecidewhethertheCourtofAppealserred x'p $ inholdingthatexpertmedicalorscientificproofofaseriousmentalinjurywasrequired D)<"& tosupporttheplaintiffsclaimfortheintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress. +$(    X2P+0 DISCUSSION    A.HistoryofIntentionalInflictionofEmotionalDistressinTennessee  #     Becauseourdecisionisbased,inlargepart,uponthedevelopmentofthelaw `X ofmentaldistressandtheerosionoftraditionalbarrierstorecovery,wewillbriefly ,$  addresstheevolutionofthelawofintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress.#XqdXXXUC4#XUXXXqdԀAtearly   commonlaw,therighttorecoverformentalinjuriessustainedthroughintentional   conductwasaffordedlittlerespect.Inaninfluentialdecision,LordWensleydale  declared: Mentalpainoranxietythelawcannotvalue,anddoesnotpretendto \T redress,whentheunlawfulactcomplainedofcausesthatalone.Lynchv.Knight,9 (  H.L.Cas.577,598(1861).#XqdXXXU9#XUXXXqd   However,despitethelawsearlyreluctancetoprovidearemedyformental  distress, courtswerepermittingrecoveryforemotionalinjuriesalone,frequentlyby X P stretchingthemeaningoftraditionaltortcategories.DanielGivelber,TheRightto $" MinimumSocialDecencyandtheLimitsofEvenhandedness:IntentionalInflictionof #  EmotionalDistressbyOutrageousConduct,82Colum.L.Rev.42,44(1982).In %" Tennessee,forexample,asearlyas1888,courtsappliedbroadinterpretationsof ' $ traditionallegalprinciplestoreachasimilarresultremedyingpurelyemotional T)L"& injuries.See,e.g.,Wadsworthv.WesternUnionTele.Co.,8S.W.574(Tenn.1888)  +$( (permittingplaintifftoproceedwithsuitforinjurytothe feelings,anguish,andpainof ,%* mind,basedondefendantsfailuretocomplywithstatutoryobligations).#XqdXXXU:;#XUXXXqd .',  InKnoxvilleTractionCo.v.Lane,53S.W.557(Tenn.1899)#XqdXXXU?#XUXXXqd,MaggieLane P2H+0 suedKnoxvilleTractionCompanyfor injuriesto[her]feelingsandsensibilities 4-2 causedbytheconductofanemployeeofKnoxvilleTraction.Theemployee,a 5.4 motorman,loudlyannouncedthatLanewasa damngoodlookingoldgirlwhohe   wouldliketomeet...whenshegetsoff.Id.at558.WhenLanerebuffedhis  advances,theemployeemadefurtherabusivecommentsandaccusedLaneofbeing    nothingbutawhore.Id.at559.Finally,afterLanebegancrying,theemployee l d assertedthatLane wouldgoouttothelakeandthrowherselfouttothementhere. 80 Id.Lanesuedfor$5,000,andajuryreturnedaverdictof$500inherfavor.Seeid.at   55859.    KnoxvilleTractionassertedthatthesuitcouldnotbemaintainedbecauseitwas h`  basedsolelyuponinjurytothefeelingsoftheplaintiff.Id.at560.TheCourt 4, rejectedthisargumentholdingthatLanecouldrecoverdamagesfor injuriestoher  feelingsandsensibilities.Id.TheCourtsdecisionrelied,inpart,onthecontractof  carriagebetweenacommoncarrierandpassengerwhichincludesadutythatthe  formerwillprotectthelatterfrominsultorinjurybyitsemployeesorthirdpersons. d\ Seeid.Thus,theCourtcharacterizedthegravamenoftheactionasbreachof 0 ( contractofcarriage.Seeid.TheCourtsconclusion,however,thatKnoxvilleTraction ! was liablefortheinjuryandinsultwillfullyinflicteduponMrs.Lane,id.at560, #  illustratestheattemptsofthejudiciarytoremedyintentionalconductwithinthenarrow %" confinesofthenexistinglaw.SeealsoHillv.TravelersIns.Co.,294S.W.1097 `'X $ (Tenn.1927)(concludingplaintiffstatedacauseofactionfordamagesfromgrief, ,)$"& worry,andmentalanguishcausedbyinterferencewithplaintiffsrightofpossessionof *#( deceasedspousesbody). ,%*  DespitetheresultinKnoxvilleTractionandothersimilarcases,recoveryfor \0T). emotionaldistresswasstilllimitedinthataplaintiffhadtofitaclaimwithinapre (2 +0 existinglegalcategoryorproveanaccompanyingphysicalinjury.Restrictionsonsuch 3,2 claimswerejustified,inpart,ongroundsthatmentalinjurieswere slightand 5.4 unimportantbutevenwhenmentalinjurieswere considerable,they[gave]norightof  action,sincethelawisdesignedtomeetgeneralconditions,andnotexceptional  cases.Colsherv.TennesseeElec.PowerCo.,84S.W.2d117,125(Tenn.Ct.App.   1935)(citing3L.R.A.49).Moresignificantly,theconsequencesofmentalinjuries l d werecharacterizedas soelusiveincharacterandthemeansoftestingthetruthof 80 theallegationssoinadequatethatpublicpolicymilitatedagainstpermittingrecovery   ofdamages.Id.at126.ractXUXXXUXqdXXXU  XUXXXqdԀAsearlyas1888,thisCourtconcededthatthebasesupon   whichitpermittedclaimsforemotionaldistresswereoftennomorethanlegalfictions.   SeeWadsworth,8S.W.at576.XUXXXUXqdXXXU  OractXqdXXXqdXUXXXqd     2      ractXUXXXUXqdXXXU  XUXXXqdԀNevertheless,Tennesseescommonlawretained h` devicesincluding legalfictionsandrequirementsofphysicalinjurytodistinguish 4, actionsbasedonemotionaldistress.Consequently,claimsforpurelyemotional  injuriesthatdidnotfitwithintraditionalcausesofactionfailed.See,e.g.,Bowersv.  ColonialStagesInterstateTransit,Inc.,43S.W.2d497(Tenn.1931),modifiedby  Camperv.Minor,915S.W.2d437(Tenn.1996)#XqdXXXUW@#XUXXXqd;MemphisSt.Ry.Co.v.Bernstein, d\ 194S.W.902(Tenn.1917),modifiedbyCamperv.Minor,915S.W.2d437(Tenn. 0 ( 1996)#XqdXXXUS#XUXXXqd;Knoxville,CumberlandGap&LouisvilleR.R.Co.v.Wyrick,42S.W.434 ! (Tenn.1897);Allv.JohnGerberCo.,252S.W.2d138(Tenn.Ct.App.1952),modified #  byCamperv.Minor,915S.W.2d437(Tenn.1996)#XqdXXXUT#XUXXXqd;Colsher,84S.W.2d117. %"  XThisCourtrecognizedthehardshipthisapproachcaused,andinMedlinv. ,)$"& AlliedInvestmentCo.,398S.W.2d270(Tenn.1966),itexamined whetherthelaw *#( recognizesandprotectsarighttoemotionaltranquilitywhererecoveryissoughtfor ,%* mentaloremotionaldisturbancealone.Id.at273.Inthecontextofintentional .', conduct,theCourtconcludedthataplaintiffdoeshavearighttoemotionaltranquility \0T). that,ifviolated,givesrisetoanindependentcauseofactionforintentionalinflictionof  emotionaldistress.Seeid.at27374.TheCourtreachedthisconclusionby  discardingthetraditionalargumentsusedtoprecludeclaimsforemotionaldistress.   First,theCourtrejectedtheassertionthatemotionalinjurieswereunprovable. 80 Itrecognizedtheinherentunfairnessinarulethatallowedaplaintiffwithaslight   physicalinjurytorecoverdamagesforaccompanyingmentalanguish,seeid.at273,   whileaplaintiffwithonlyamentalinjurywasleftwithoutaremedy.TheMedlinCourt   observedthatrecoverybyaplaintifffallingwithintheformerdesignationimpliesthata h` mentalinjurymaybesufficientlyprovedtopermitanawardofdamages.Seeid. 4, Indeed,thisCourtrejecteddistinctionsbetweenmentalandphysicalinjuryand  concludedthat [m]entalsuffering...isnomoredifficulttoproveandnoharderto  calculateintermsofmoneythanthephysicalpainofabrokenlegwhichhasnever  beendeniedcompensation.Id. d\  X Second,theCourtinMedlindismissedtheargumentthatmentalinjuriescould ! notbeadequatelyremediedbydamages,becausetheyweresointangibleand #  peculiartoaparticularindividualthattheycouldnotbeanticipated.Seeid.We %" acknowledgedtheviewofmedicalsciencethatemotionaldistressmaywellhave `'X $ physicalconsequencesandagreedthatsuchknowledgewaspossessedbythe ,)$"& averageperson whounderstandstosomeextentthat[theconsequencesof *#( emotionaldistress]arenormal,ratherthantheunusualresultofmanytypesof ,%* conduct.Id.Thus,thisCourt discardedforeseeabilityasthesolecriterionoflegal .', cause.Id. \0T).  N Finally,theCourtinMedlinaddressedconcernsthatrecognizingacauseof 3,2 actionforintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistresswouldleadtoahostoftrivial 5.4 claims.Thesolutiontotheseconcernswasfoundintherequirementsofsection46of  theRestatement(Second)ofTorts,whichprovides:  b X XX  Onewhobyextremeandoutrageousconductintentionallyorrecklessly l d causessevereemotionaldistresstoanotherissubjecttoliabilityforsuch R J emotionaldistress,andifbodilyharmresultsfromit,forsuchbodilyharm. 80 lc X XN= 0 8@H!#%P(*-X/1NIWId.at274(quotingRestatement(Second)ofTorts46(1)(1965)).   e Bygroundingthecauseofactionforintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress h` withintheRestatementframework,welimitedrecoverytothoseplaintiffswhocould 4, satisfyitsrequirements.InBain,wehadtheoccasiontoclarifytherequirementsto  establishaprimafaciecaseofintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress:(1)the  conductcomplainedofmustbeintentionalorreckless;(2)theconductmustbeso  outrageousthatitisnottoleratedbycivilizedsociety;and(3)theconductmustresult d\ inseriousmentalinjurytotheplaintiff.SeeBain,936S.W.2dat622.Itisthisthird 0 ( requirementthatisthesubjectofthisappealandtowhichwenowturnourattention. ! e ]lB.MajorityandMinorityApproachestotheNecessityofExpertProof  %"  Inthebriefhistoryofthetortofintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress,this <)4"&  Courthasnotexaminedwhetherexperttestimonyisrequiredtoestablishthe +$( existenceofaseriousmentalinjury.XUXXXUXqdXXXU  j"&XqdXXXqdXUXXXqd     3      "&XUXXXUXqdXXXU  XUXXXqdԀOthercourts,however,thathaveexaminedthis  issuehavecometomarkedlydifferentconclusions.    Aminorityofjurisdictionsrequiresexpertmedicalorscientificproofofserious l d mentalinjurytomaintainaclaimforintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress.See, 80 e.g.,Childsv.Williams,825S.W.2d4(Mo.Ct.App.1992);Kazatskyv.KingDavid   MemlPark,Inc.,527A.2d988(Pa.1987);Vallinotov.DiSandro,688A.2d830(R.I.   1997).Thesecourtsreasonthatexpertproofisnecessarytopreventthetortfrom   beingreducedtoasingleelementofoutrageousness,sobyrequiringexpertproof,the h` elementsofoutrageousconductandseriousmentalinjuryremaindistinct.See 4, Kazatsky,527A.2dat995.Moreover,courtsexpressingtheminorityviewcontend  thatbecauseexpertproofcanbeeasilyobtained,itmustbeusedtoproveserious  mentalinjury.Seeid.( Giventheadvancedstateofmedicalscience,itisunwiseand  unnecessarytopermitrecovery...withoutexpertmedicalconfirmationthatthe d\ plaintiffactuallysufferedtheclaimeddistress.).#XqdXXXU'V#XUXXXqdԀThesecourtsassertthatduetothe 0 ( wideavailabilityofexpertproof,plaintiffswillencounter littledifficultyinprocuring ! reliabletestimonyastothenatureandextentoftheirinjuries.Id.at995. #   X %" Amajorityofcourtsthathaveexaminedthisissue,however,haveconcluded `'X $ thatexpertproofisgenerallynotnecessarytoestablishtheexistenceofaserious ,)$"& mentalinjury.See,e.g.,Richardsonv.FairbanksNorthStarBorough,705P.2d454  (Alaska1985);Latremorev.Latremore,584A.2d626(Me.1990);McKnightv.  SimpsonsBeautySupply,Inc.,358S.E.2d107(N.C.Ct.App.1987);Uebelackerv.   CincomSys.Inc.,549N.E.2d1210(OhioCt.App.1988);Chandlerv.Denton,741 l d P.2d855(Okla.1987);Peeryv.Hanley,897P.2d1189(Or.Ct.App.1995);Browerv. 80 Ackerly,943P.2d1141(Wash.Ct.App.1997);Tannerv.RiteAidofW.Va.,Inc.,461   S.E.2d149(W.Va.1995).Theflagrantandoutrageousnatureofthedefendants   conduct,accordingtothesecourts,addsweighttoaplaintiffsclaimandaffordsmore   assurancethattheclaimisserious.SeeBrower,943P.2dat102;Tanner,461 h` S.E.2dat655.Moreover,experttestimonyisnotessentialbecauseotherreliable 4, formsofevidence,includingphysicalmanifestationsofdistressandsubjective  testimony,areavailable.SeeChandler,741P.2dat867;Peery,897P.2dat1191.  Courtsfollowingthemajorityapproachalsocontendthatexperttestimonyisnormally  notnecessarybecauseajuryisgenerallycapableofdeterminingwhetheraclaimant d\ hassustainedaseriousmentalinjuryasaproximateresultoftheintentionalconduct 0 ( ofanotherperson.SeeMcKnight,358S.E.2dat109.Additionally,courtsexpressing ! themajorityviewreasonthattheverynatureofthetortofintentionalinflictionof #  emotionaldistress makesitimpossibletoquantifydamagesmainlyonexpertmedical %" evidence.Chandler,741P.2dat867. `'X $  X C.AdoptionofMajorityApproach  +#(  Weconcludethatthemajorityapproachisconsistentwithourprecedentsand .', theunderlyingpoliciesgoverningthelawofintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress. l0d). #XqdXXXUr#XUXXXqdAspreviouslydiscussed,theCourtinMedlinexaminedandrejectedarguments 820+0 traditionallyusedtojustifylimitingactionsformentaldistress.#XqdXXXU|}#XUXXXqdԀInMedlin,theCourt 4,2 dispensedwiththefirstargument!nonrecognitionofintentionalinflictionof 5.4 emotionaldistressasanindependenttort.Afterweighingthepolicyconsiderationsfor  andagainstrecognizingintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistressasanindependent  tort,thisCourtconcludedthatthepurposesforpermittingrecoveryforintentional   inflictionofemotionaldistress outweigh[]thevalidpolicyconsiderationagainst l d allowingsuchactions.Medlin,398S.W.2dat274.Additionally,throughour 80 interpretationofintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress,thisCourthasalsorejected   asecondargument!therequirementofanaccompanyingphysicalinjury.See   Medlin,398S.W.2dat27374.Thepolicyunderlyingdevelopmentofthetortisthat   legitimateclaimsforemotionaldistressshouldbeactionableandshouldbejudgedon h` theirmerits.Withourdecisiontoday,werejectathirdargument!therequirementof 4, experttestimony.Insodoing,weensurethataplaintiffwithalegitimateclaimfor  intentionalinflictionofemotionaldistresswillhaveanopportunitytoseekredressfor  thatclaim,unburdenedbythehistoricallimitsimposedbylaw.   Thedefendantsarguethatbypermittingclaimsforintentionalinflictionof 0 ( emotionaldistresstoproceedwithoutexperttestimony,wewillcreateinconsistency ! withregardtoprovingseriousmentalinjuries.InCamperv.Minor,915S.W.2d437, #  446(Tenn.1996),weheldthataclaimedinjuryorimpairmentcausedbya %" defendantsnegligentinflictionofemotionaldistress mustbesupportedbyexpert `'X $ medicalorscientificproof.Accordingly,thedefendantsherecontendthatifwe ,)$"& requireexpertmedicalorscientificprooffornegligentinflictionofemotionaldistress *#( butnotintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress, seriousmentalinjurywillceaseto ,%* haveaunifiedmeaningasatermofart.Wedisagree.Ourdecisiondoesnotchange .', thedefinitionof seriousmentalinjury,butitdoesdistinguishbetweenthemethodsof \0T). prooffortheseparatetorts.Thisisso,because,althoughtheinjurysustainedinboth (2 +0 tortsisthesame,thecircumstancessurroundingtheinflictionoftheinjuryarenot. 3,2  5.4  #XqdXXXUh~#XUXXXqdWerecognizethatlegitimateconcernsoffraudulentandtrivialclaimsare  implicatedwhenaplaintiffbringsanactionforapurelymentalinjury.Thus,  safeguardsareneededtoensurethereliabilityofclaimsforintentionalandnegligent   inflictionofemotionaldistress.Thesesafeguards,however,differbasedonthekind l d ofconduct,ratherthanthekindofinjury,forwhichaplaintiffseeksaremedy. 80  #XqdXXXU#XUXXXqdWithregardtointentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress,theaddedmeasureof   reliability,i.e.,theinsuranceagainstfrivolousclaims,isfoundintheplaintiffsburden   toprovethattheoffendingconductwasoutrageous.Thisisanexactingstandard ld requiringtheplaintifftoshowthatthedefendantsconductis sooutrageousin 80 character,andsoextremeindegree,astogobeyondallpossibleboundsofdecency  andtoberegardedasatrocious,andutterlyintolerableinacivilizedcommunity.  Restatement(Second)ofTorts46cmt.d(1965).Suchconductis important  evidencethatthedistresshasexisted,id.45cmt.j,andfromsuchconduct,more h` reliableindiciaofaseverementalinjurymayarise.Theoutrageousnatureofthe 4 , conduct,therefore,vitiatestheneedforexperttestimonyinaclaimforintentional " inflictionofemotionaldistress.#XqdXXXU6#XUXXXqdTheriskoffrivolouslitigation,then,isalleviatedin #  claimsforintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistressbytherequirementthataplaintiff %" provethattheoffendingconductwassooutrageousthatitisnottoleratedbya d'\ $ civilizedsociety. 0)("&  Incasesofnegligentinflictionofemotionaldistress,however,theconduct ,%* givingrisetothetortisnotmarkedbyextraordinaryoroutrageouselementsinherent .', inintentionalconduct.Thus,concernswithunwarrantedclaimsarenotaddressedby `0X). thekindofconductthatmustbeprovedtoobtaindamagesforemotionaldistress.In ,2$+0 theabsenceofanyreliableindiciaofaseverementalinjurysuggestedbytheconduct, 3,2 somesafeguardmustbeimposedtolimitfrivolouslitigation.#XqdXXXUҐ#XUXXXqdAccordingly,whenthe 5.4 conductcomplainedofisnegligentratherthanintentional,theplaintiffmustprovethe  seriousmentalinjurybyexpertmedicalorscientificproof.SeeCamper,915S.W.2d  at446.#XqdXXXU#XUXXXqd    #XqdXXXU #AiXUXXXqdAlthoughweadoptthemajorityapproachandholdthatplaintiffsnormallywill 80 notberequiredtosupporttheirclaimsofseriousmentalinjurybyexpertproofinorder   torecoverdamagesinasuitbasedupontheintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress,   wecertainlydonotdiscredittheuseofexperttestimonyattrial.Wearefullyaware   thattherewillbemanycasesinwhichajudgeorjurymaynotappreciatethefull h` extentanddisablingeffectsofaplaintiffsemotionalinjurywithoutexpertevidence. 4, Forexample,ourdecisioninnowaychangesthelongstandingrequirementthat  experttestimonyisrequiredtosupportanawardofdamagesforpersonalinjuriesthat  arepermanentincharacter.See,e.g.,Sandersv.Johnson,859S.W.2d329,331  (Tenn.Ct.App.1993);Porterv.Green,755S.W.2d874,87778(Tenn.Ct.App. d\ 1987). 0 (  Ourdecisiontodaymerelyrecognizesthatinmostcasesotherformsofproof #  mayalsobeusedtoestablishaclaimforintentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress. %" Suchproofmayincludeaclaimantsowntestimony,seePeery,897P.2dat1191,as `'X $ wellasthetestimonyofotherlaywitnessesacquaintedwiththeclaimant,see ,)$"& Uebelacker,549N.E.2dat1220.Physicalmanifestationsofemotionaldistressmay *#( alsoserveasproofofseriousmentalinjury.Moreover,evidencethataplaintiffhas ,%* sufferedfromnightmares,insomnia,anddepressionorhassoughtpsychiatric .', treatmentmaysupportaclaimofaseriousmentalinjury.SeeMedlin,398S.W.2dat \0T).  272;Johnsonv.WomansHosp.,527S.W.2d133,140(Tenn.Ct.App.1975).The (2 +0 intensityanddurationofthementaldistressarealsofactorsthatmaybeconsideredin  determiningtheseverityoftheinjury.    4          Suchproof,however,isnoguaranteethataplaintiffwillprevail.Theweight, l d faith,andcredibilityaffordedtoanywitnessstestimonyliesinthefirstinstancewith 80 thetrieroffactwhoisfreetoconcludethatthesubjectivetestimonyofaplaintiffor   otherlaywitnessesisnotsufficienttoproveaseriousmentalinjury.#XqdXXXU#XUXXXqdԀThus,although   notlegallyrequired, [e]xperttestimonymaybethemosteffectivemethodof   demonstratingtheexistenceofsevereemotionaldistress.Richardson,705P.2dat h` 457n.6.#XqdXXXU#XUXXXqd 4,  D.ConsistencywithLawGoverningExpertTestimony    Ourdecisionisalsoconsistentwiththelawgoverningtherequireduseof tl experttestimony.Themereavailabilityofexpertproofdoesnotgiverisetoa @ 8 correspondingobligationthatitbeused.Rather,experttestimonyisnecessaryonly  " whenthesubjectofexaminationrequiresknowledgeorexperiencethatpersons #  lackingspecialskillsdonothaveandthatcannotbeobtainedfromordinarywitnesses. %" SeeLawrenceCountyBankv.Riddle,621S.W.2d735,737(Tenn.1981).Ifthe p'h $ finderoffactcancomprehendthesubjectofexpertisewithoutexperttestimony,then <)4"& anexpertwitnessisnotnecessary.Seeid. +$(   ,%*  TheRestatement(Second)ofTorts,theframeworkforintentionalinflictionof   emotionaldistressinTennessee,#XqdXXXU#XUXXXqdԀcouchesthetortintermsindicatingthatexpert  testimonyshouldnotberequired.PursuanttotheRestatement,thetorttypically   existswhen therecitationofthefacts[ofacommissionofthetort]toanaverage l d memberofthecommunitywouldarousehisresentmentagainsttheactor,andlead 80 himtoexclaimOutrageous!Restatement(Second)ofTorts46cmt.d(1965).The   kindsofemotionaldistressthatmayberemediedinclude fright,horror,grief,shame,   humiliation,embarrassment,anger,chagrin,disappointment,worry,andnausea.   Restatement(Second)ofTorts46cmt.j(1965).Suchemotionalresponsesarenot h` soesotericthattheyoccupyadimensionbeyondthecognitivegraspoftheaverage 4, laypersonandarethereforeaccessibleonlytotheexpert.See,e.g.,Chandler,741  P.2dat867( Inmostcases,jurorsfromtheirownexperienceareawareoftheextent  andcharacterofthedisagreeableemotionsthatmayresultfromadefendants  outrageousconduct.).Accordingly,weconcludethatthetrieroffactcannormally d\ ascertaintheexistenceofaseriousmentalinjurycausedbytheintentionalinflictionof 0 ( emotionaldistress,thusobviatingthenecessityofexpertproof.#XqdXXXU#XUXXXqd ! #XqdXXXU#XUXXXqd ,X    #  CONCLUSION  %"   , X l'd $ Insummary,weholdthatexpertmedicalorscientificproofofaseriousmental 8)0"& injuryisgenerallynotrequiredtomaintainaclaimforintentionalinflictionofemotional +#( distress.Accordingly,wereversethejudgmentsofthetrialcourtandtheCourtof ,%* Appealsandremandtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings. .',  h0`).   42,+0 CostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheAppellees.  *            ~ _____________________________ l d WILLIAMM.BARKER,JUSTICE R J + 80  XCONCUR:   ANDERSON,C.J.   DROWOTA,BIRCH,ANDHOLDER,J.J.#XqdXXXU<#