a duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid causing emotional harm”); Clomon v. Monroe City Sch. Bd., 572 So.2d 571, 575 (La.1991) (discussing “rules or decisions permitting recovery for emotional distress from a tortfeasor who owed the plaintiff a special, direct, duty created by law, contract, or special relationship”); Menorah Chapels v. Needle, 386 N.J.Super. 100, 899 A.2d 316, 324 (App.Div.2006) (allowing recovery based on contract “where the subject-matter of the contract is such as to make it certain or reasonably probable that the parties had in contemplation, at the time of the making of the contract, a pecuniary satisfaction for the anguish and distress of mind ensuing from a breach of its terms”); Johnson v. State, 37 N.Y.2d 378, 372 N.Y.S.2d 638, 334 N.E.2d 590, 592 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Curtis v. MRI Imaging Servs. II, 327 Or. 9,
recognizing cause of action holding where there is a single wrong to plaintiff for which relief is sought arising from an interlocked series of transactions there is no separate and independent claim or cause of action under  1441c recognizing the cause of action recognizing that when a cause of action is reduced to a judgment the cause of action is merged into the judgment and thereafter only an action on the judgment exists recognizing a cause of action where there is an especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress arising from  special circumstances which serves as a guarantee that the claim is not spurious