amended Complaint sets forth their “emotional distress” claim. Upon review, the Court notes that Count V actually alleges only negligent misconduct by Wal-Mart, not intentional infliction of emotional distress. Both parties have briefed the emotional distress issue, however, as if they were addressing an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim in Count V, relying exclusively on case law dealing with such a claim. As a result, the Court likewise will treat Count V as an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. In so doing, the Court notes that Ohio law does not provide a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress under the facts alleged by the Plaintiffs. See, e.g., Heiner v. Moretuzzo, 73 Ohio St.3d 80, 652 N.E.2d 664, 669-670 (1995) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Although the amended Complaint is
holding that under south dakota law compensation for negligent infliction of emotional distress requires manifestation of physical symptoms and intentional infliction of emotional distress requires an extreme disabling emotional response holding that a party claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress cannot recover for emotional disturbance alone holding that plaintiffs outsized emotional reaction to car accident was not allowed as basis for emotional distress damages where reasonable person would have experienced some anger or been upset but would not have suffered severe distress recognizing torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress recognizing that a plaintiff cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress unless she has either witnessed or experienced a dangerous accident or experienced some actual physical peril