Kyle has failed to demonstrate the existence of a jury question as to her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and the trial court erred in denying Franklin’s and Urology’s motion for summary judgment on that issue. ¶ 20. Where there is no physical injury, a party may recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress, “where there is something about the defendant’s conduct which evokes outrage or revulsion.” Morrison v. Means, 680 So.2d 803, 806 (Miss.1996) (citing Sears 405 So.2d at 902). “The standard is whether the defendant’s behavior is malicious, intentional, willful, wanton, grossly careless, indifferent or reckless.” Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc. v. Ferguson, 662 So.2d 648, 659 (Miss.1995). See also Smith v. Malouf 722 So.2d 490, 498 (Miss.1998) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 21. Kyle argues evidence of malice exists
holding there must be some sort of demons trative harm and said harm must have been reasonably foreseeable by the defendant holding a business owes a duty to protect invitees from reasonably foreseeable harm by third persons holding that the opposing party must show substantial harm holding that before a duty can be imposed there must be a relationship between the parties and the harm must have been foreseeable holding that the threat of irreparable harm must be immediate