With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". plaintiff); Turman v. Central Billing Bureau, 279 Or 443, 445-49, 568 P2d 1382 (1977) (evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient). The second is where the defendant intended to commit an injury-inflicting act with knowledge that it would cause severe distress, and the defendant’s relationship to the plaintiff involves some responsibility aside from the tort itself. Hall v. The May Dept. Stores Co., 292 Or 131, 135-37, 637 P2d 126 (1981) (evidence sufficient to support verdict for employee against employer under theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress). Finally, the third arises where the defendant’s negligent conduct infringed on some legally protected interest of the plaintiff apart from causing the claimed psychic injury. See Nearing, 295 Or at 706 (1983) (<HOLDING>); McEvoy v. Helikson, 277 Or 781, 562 P2d 540

A: holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim
B: recognizing recovery under common law for tort damages that are proven to be reasonably foreseeable damages of ones tortious acts
C: holding that expert proof was not required for an asserted claim of ordinary negligence
D: recognizing that oregon law allows recovery of damages for psychic harm when defendants conduct infringes some legal right of plaintiff independent of an ordinary tort claim for negligence
D.