“In the case at hand, there exist no duties on the part of the appellant to the appellee, other than those arising from the contract.” I disagree. The jury found that Wal-Mart maliciously withheld the wages of Mr. Coward. This action is extraneous to the contract. See Caplan v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., 188 Cal.App.3d 1193, 233 Cal.Rptr. 901 (Dist. 1 Div. 1, 1987). The issue before the jury was not whether Wal-Mart owed Coward the wages, nor whether they withheld the wages; for certainly both of these factual issues were undisputed. The issue before the jury was whether this withholding was malicious and whether Coward suffered any damage. This is intentional conduct by Wal-Mart and sounds in tort. See M.B.M. Co., Inc. v. Counce, 59 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1986), aff’d, 730 S.W.2d 649 (Tex.1987)
recognizing torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress holding that intentional infliction of emotional distress is a personal injury tort recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress recognizing the tort of negligent infliction of emotional trauma in noninjurynondeath cases holding that a party claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress cannot recover for emotional disturbance alone