desires or is substantially certain the conduct will occur
intentionally causes harmful or offensive contact with the victim’s person
intentionally causes victim's reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact.
The Restatement, unlike many courts, deletes the requirement that apprehension be “reasonable”
victim must perceive that harmful or offensive contact is about to happen to him
victim's apprehension must be of imminent harmful or offensive contact
intentionally cause confinement or restraint of the victim within a bounded area.
by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly causes the victim severe mental distress.
The majority held that a public figure could not recover without proving such statements were made with New York Times malice, i.e., with “knowledge or reckless disregard toward the truth or falsity” of the assertion.
recklessness, in addition to intent, generally suffices for liability
Courts have usually awarded a third-party victim recovery
only if, in addition to proving the elements of the tort, she is (1) a close relative of the primary victim; (2) present at the scene of the outrageous conduct against the primary victim; and (3) the defendant knows the close relative is present.
Restatement is somewhat less restrictive, requiring only that a primary victim's immediate family members be present and can prove the elements of the tort. Non-relatives who satisfy the elements of the tort can also recover under the Restatement if they are present and suffer physical manifestation of severe distress.
Common carriers and innkeepers are liable for intentional
gross insults which cause patrons to suffer mental distress.