The issue is whether Mr. Bega has the intent of inflicting emotional distress to our client. This sub element is satisfied when the wrongdoer acts with the specific purpose on inflicting emotional distress to the plaintiff. Womack, 215 Va. 338. The court will likely find M. Bega act with the specific purpose on inflicting emotional distress to Ms. Romero because the threat he made as only the purpose to cause her an emotional distress because she breaks up with him.
In Ruth v. Fletcher, 237 Va. 366, the court considered the question of whether Ruth intended to inflict an emotional distress to Fletcher. Here Fletcher was told by Ruth that he was the father and acted as such for the first four years of the child's life. A blood test proved he was not the child's biological father in consequence his visitation rights were terminated. But the mother permitted the man's name to be placed on the child's birth certificate and only revealed the truth when she and her new husband initiated adoption proceedings. The court reasoning was that there was no proof that she set out to convince Ted that the child was his, and, to cause him to develop a loving relationship with the child so that in the end, she could hurt Ted by…show more content… Bega did not act with intent to inflict an emotional distress to Ms. Romero. In both cases, they had good relationships. M. Bega even gave a gift to Ms. Romero as gesture so she can have a bikini to use during her spring break. Ruth was committed to the relationship too. She even authorized Fletcher to see the child after the break up and talk to him over the phone even in bad situation to seek counsel. Here, the behavior of M. Bega shows that he wanted to get back with her. After the conflict that led to the “break up”, he sent her a text message saying “please give me another chance.” This behavior showed that his did not want to hurt her but only to get back his
