With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". i. The second element of the tort requires proof that the tortfeasor’s conduct was “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Kraszewski v. Baptist Med. Ctr. of Okla., Inc., 916 P.2d 241, 248 n. 25 (Okla.1996) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. d). Generally, the case is one where “the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, ‘Outrageous!’ ” Id. at 249 n. 25. In addition, whether the tortfeasor’s conduct was extreme and outrageous must be considered in the setting in which the conduct occurred. Eddy v. Brown, 715 P.2d 74, 77 (Okla.1986) (<HOLDING>); see also Starr v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 54

A: holding that discriminatory event which took place three years before was too remote
B: holding that expert testimony provided a credible basis from which a court could infer that corporate wrongdoing took place
C: holding that arrest took place inside home even though officers did not physically enter residence to place suspect in custody
D: holding that nature of the conduct should not be considered in a sterile setting detached from the milieu in which it took place
D.