to a Butte miner and a United States marine.’ 281 Md. at 568, 380 A.2d 611 (citation omitted). We also recognized in Harris that “where the defendant is in a peculiar position to harass the plaintiff, and cause emotional distress, his conduct will be carefully scrutinized by the courts.” Id. at 569, 380 A.2d 611. As Dean Prosser, the preeminent commentator on the law of torts, stated: [t]he extreme and outrageous nature of the conduct may arise not so much from what is done as from abuse by the defendant of some relation or position which gives him actual or apparent power to damage the plaintiff’s interests. W. Prosser, The Law of Torts 56 (4th ed. 1971). We applied this principle in Harris, and most recently, in Fiqueiredo-Torres v. Nickel, 321 Md. 642, 653-55, 584 A.2d 69 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Batson’s position as National Union President
holding that while uniform standards may not exist the unique nature of fingerprints is counterintuitive to the establishment of such a standard holding that the unique nature of psychotherapistpatient relationship gives rise to a duty of care to the patient recognizing the unique nature of an accuseds admissions holding that provision would not be enforced due to that fact that the doctorpatient relationship is special and entitled to unique protection holding that the nature of a psychologistpatient relationship is such that the psychologist is in a unique position to influence the patients emotional wellbeing