Epstein Secrets

asis added). Plainly, this case involves the general rule, not the narrow exception, because only one person could have caused Jane Doe's injuries. CI Martin v. Marlin, 529 So. 2d 1174, 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (upholding 13 Lewis Tann. 3059 Gomainwtkvi, Sun 340, (WONT G.ovejtam 33133 13 Of S16 EFTA00234236 Ca

ous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the plaintiff has failed to

phasis added). Plainly, th;s Cat ;nvulvcs dic genera-rule, not the narrow exception, because only one person could have caused Jane Doe's injuries. CI Martin v. Marlin, 529 So. 2d 1174, 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (upholding 13 LeNviA:Ein n. 309 Gram Avow'. Sun( 340,Cocoito Gnm. ha/a:433133 13 1315 EFTA00231025 C

ous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the plaintiff has failed to

affis-added). Plainlyithis-ctbe involvcb die geucral rule, not the narrow exception, because only one person could have caused Jane Doe's injuries. CI Martin v. Marlin, 529 So. 2d 1174, 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (upholding 13 Lewis 30$9GweAvoug, Sun( 340.03conta Griot CiaiuoA 33133 11.1311 EFTA00232145 Case 9:0

ous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). In this case, without reaching the question of "outrage," the plaintiff has failed to