ON PETITION TO TRANSFER

KRAHULIK, Justice.

Dan R. Cullison (Appellant-Plaintiff below) petitions this Court to accept transfer of this cause in order to reverse the . trial court’s entry of summary judgment against him and in favor of the Appellees-Defendants below (collectively “the Medleys”). The Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of summary judgment. Cullison v. Medley (1990), Ind.App., 559 N.E.2d 619. For the reasons set forth below, we grant transfer, vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals, reverse the entry of summary judgment and remand to the trial court.

The sole issue presented for review is whether the “impact rule” prohibits Culli-son from recovering under any of several legal theories for emotional distress resulting from the Medleys alleged wrongdoings. In his four-count complaint, Cullison alleged trespass, assault, harrassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress and sought to recover damages for his emotional and psychological injury.

In reviewing the propriety of the trial court's entry of summary judgment, we apply the same standard applicable in the trial court. We must construe the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Only if such evidence shows no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law should the summary judgment be affirmed. Ind.Trial Rule 56; Ayres v. Indiana Heights Volunteer Fire Dept. (1986), Ind., 493 N.E.2d 1229, 1234. We conclude that the evidence presented to the trial court construed in favor of the non-moving party, Cullison, establishes questions of fact which require jury resolution on three of the four counts alleged in Cullison’s complaint.

According to Cullison’s deposition testimony, on February 2, 1986, he encountered Sandy, the 16-year-old daughter of Ernest, in a Linton, Indiana, grocery store parking lot. They exchanged pleasantries and Cul-lison invited her to have a Coke with him and to come to his home to talk further. A few hours later, someone knocked on the door of his mobile home. Cullison got out of bed and answered the door. He testified that he saw a person standing in the darkness who said that she wanted to talk to him. Cullison answered that he would have to get dressed because he had been in bed. Cullison went back to his bedroom, dressed, and returned to the darkened living room of his trailer. When he entered the living room and turned the lights on, he was confronted by Sandy Medley, as well 'as by father Ernest, brother Ron, mother Doris, and brother-in-law Terry Simmons. Ernest was on crutches due to knee surgery and had a revolver in a holster strapped to his thigh. Cullison testified that Sandy called him a “pervert” and told him he was “sick,” mother Doris berated him while keeping her hand in her pocket, convincing Cullison that she also was carrying a pistol. Ron and Terry said nothing to Cullison, but their presence in his trailer home further intimidated him. Primarily, however, Cullison’s attention was *29 riveted to the gun carried by Ernest. Culli-son testified that, while Ernest never withdrew the gun from his holster, he “grabbed for the gun a few times and shook the gun” at plaintiff while threatening to “jump astraddle” of Cullison if he did not leave Sandy alone. Cullison testified that Ernest “kept grabbing at it with his hand, like he was going to take it out,” and “took it to mean he was going to shoot me” when Ernest threatened to “jump astraddle” of Cullison. Although no one actually touched Cullison, his testimony was that he feared he was about to be shot throughout the episode because Ernest kept moving his hand toward the gun as if to draw the revolver from the holster while threatening Cullison to leave Sandy alone.

As the Medleys were leaving, Cullison suffered chest pains and feared that he was having a heart attack. Approximately two months later, Cullison testified that Ernest glared at him in a menacing manner while again armed with a handgun at a restaurant in Linton. On one of these occasions, Ernest stood next to the booth where Cullison was seated while wearing a pistol and a holster approximately one foot from Cullison’s face. Shortly after the incident at his home, Cullison learned that Ernest had previously shot a man. . This added greatly to his fear and apprehension of Ernest on the later occasions when Ernest glared at him and stood next to the booth at which he was seated while armed with a handgun in a holster.

Cullison testified that as a result of the incident, he sought psychological counseling and therapy and continued to see a therapist for approximately 18 months. Additionally, Cullison sought psychiatric help and received prescription medication which prevented him from operating power tools or driving an automobile, thus injuring Cullison in his sole proprietorship construction business. Additionally, Cullison testified that he suffered from nervousness, depression, sleeplessness, inability to concentrate and impotency following his run-in with the Medleys.

I. Trespass

Cullison alleged that the Medleys trespassed when they entered his trailer without his permission after he had gone to the back of the trailer to dress. Every unauthorized entry on the land of another constitutes, a trespass. State ex rel. McPherson v. Beckner (1892), 132 Ind. 371, 31 N.E. 950; Evans v. State (1986) Ind.App. 493 N.E.2d 806. Here, Cullison did not directly or impliedly invite the five members of the Medley family to enter into his trailer home. Clearly, Cullison’s complaint properly alleged an actionable count of trespass. The Court of Appeals agreed that a trespass may have occurred and that Cullison may be entitled to receive nominal damages, but relying upon Indiana Motorcycle Association v. Hudson (1980), Ind.App., 399 N.E.2d 775, decided that absent a showing of physical injury caused by the defendants or evidence that defendants’ behavior was willful, callous or malicious, an action for trespass would not support the emotional distress damages requested by Cullison. The Court of Appeals concluded that because there was no physical injury and the Medleys’ actions could not be said to be malicious, callous, or willful, Cullison’s claim for mental injuries occasioned by the trespass must fail.

The Court of Appeals accurately stated the rule of law and its justification:

The general rule in Indiana, known as the impact rule, is that damages for mental anguish are recoverable only when accompanied by and resulting from a physical injury. Charlie Stuart Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Smith (1976), 171 Ind.App. 315, 357 N.E.2d 247, modified on other grounds, 175 Ind.App. 1, 369 N.E.2d 947. The rationale behind this rule is that absent physical injury, mental anguish is speculative, subject to exaggeration, likely to lead to fictitious claims, and often so unforeseeable that there is no rational basis for awarding damages.

559 N.E.2d at 621. The Court of Appeals applied this rule and rationale to the court in Cullison’s complaint alleging trespass.

*30 We now conclude that the rationale for this rule, whatever its historical foundation, is no longer valid and, therefore, the so-called “impact rule” does not apply to prohibit recovery for emotional distress when sustained in the course of a tortious trespass. When one intentionally invades the premises of another in such a way as to provoke a reasonably foreseeable emotional disturbance or trauma of the rightful occupier of the premises, the occupier may, in addition to recovering damages to the realty, if any, recover damages for such emotional injury. The mere fact of a physical injury, however minor, does not make mental distress damages any less speculative, subject to exaggeration, or likely to lead to fictitious claims. In fact, the experience in this state is that juries are equally qualified to judge someone’s emotional injury as they are to judge someone’s pain and suffering or future pain and suffering, and the presence or absence of some physical injury does nothing to alleviate the jury's burden in deciding whether the elements of mental suffering are present. We note there are those who argue that allowing recovery for mental damages will result in an inundation of the court system with such claims, but we do not believe that the workload occasioned by some possible increase in legitimate claims is any reason to deny or prohibit such claims.

In the present case, the complaint alleges trespass and the testimony of Cullison supports such allegations. It will be for the jury to determine whether the trespass occurred and whether such intentional trespass foreseeably would provoke an emotional disturbance or trauma. Summary judgment was entered inappropriately on count one of Cullison’s complaint.

II. Assault

In count two of his complaint, Cullison alleged an assault. The Court of Appeals decided that, because Ernest never removed his gun from the holster, his threat that he was going to “jump astraddle” of Cullison constituted conditional language which did not express any present intent to harm Cullison and, therefore, was not an assault. Further, the Court of Appeals decided that even if it were to find an assault, summary judgment was still appropriate because Cullison alleged only emotional distress and made no showing that the Medleys’ actions were malicious, callous, or willful or that the alleged injuries he suffered were a foreseeable result of the Medleys’ conduct. We disagree.

It is axiomatic that assault, unlike battery, is effectuated when one acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or an imminent apprehension of such contact. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 21 (1965). It is the right to be free from the apprehension of a battery which is protected by the tort action which we call an assault. As this Court held approximately 90 years ago in Kline v. Kline (1901), 158 Ind. 602, 64 N.E. 9, an assault constitutes “a touching of the mind, if not of the body.” Because it is a touching of the mind, as opposed to the body, the damages which are recoverable for an assault are damages for mental trauma and distress. “Any act of such a nature as to excite an apprehension of a battery may constitute an assault. It is an assault to shake a fist under another’s nose, to aim or strike at him with a weapon, or to hold it in a threatening position, to rise or advance to strike another, to surround him with a display of force_” W. Prosser & J. Keaton, Prosser and Keaton on Torts § 10 (5th ed. 1984). Additionally, the apprehension must be one which would normally be aroused in the mind of a reasonable person. Id. Finally, the tort is complete with the invasion of the plaintiff’s mental peace.

The facts alleged and testified to by Cul-lison could, if believed, entitle him to recover for an assault against the Medleys. A jury could reasonably conclude that the Medleys intended to frighten Cullison by surrounding him in his trailer and threatening him with bodily harm while one of them was armed with a revolver, even if that revolver was not removed from the its holster. Cullison testified that Ernest kept grabbing at the pistol as if he were going to take it out, and that Cullison thought *31 Ernest was going to shoot him. It is for the jury to determine whether Cullison’s apprehension of being shot or otherwise injured was one which would normally be aroused in the mind of a reasonable person. It was error for the trial court to enter summary judgment on the count two allegation of assault.

III. Invasion of Privacy

The third count of Cullison’s complaint sought to recover damages for “har-rassment”, but in his brief to the Court of Appeals, Cullison argued that count III more properly alleged the tort of invasion of privacy. Cullison claims that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against him on this count. The Court of Appeals decided that he had waived this issue by not briefing it at the trial court level but, nevertheless, decided that the facts did not rise to the level of “outrageous wrongful intrusion into one’s private activities.” 559 N.E.2d at 624. Again, we disagree. The tort of invasion of privacy encompasses four separate forms; viz, appropriation, intrusion, public disclosure of private facts, and false light in the public eye. Prosser and Keaton, supra § 117. When the invasion of a plaintiff’s right to privacy takes the form of intrusion, it consists of an intrusion upon the plaintiff’s physical solitude or seclusion as by invading his home or conducting an illegal search. Id. Here, the evidence according to Cullison’s testimony, was that he did not invite any of the Medleys into his home and was apprehensive to discover all five of them standing in his darkened living room when he turned on the light. This may constitute an intrusive invasion of Cullison’s right of privacy. The allegations that Ernest harrassed Cullison in the Hardee’s restaurant or that Sandy and her mother harrassed Cullison by walking past his home in a taunting manner would not constitute an actionable claim for invasion of privacy because plaintiff has no legal right to be left alone on a public street or in a public place. For that reason and because the events which occurred inside the trailer also constitute a trespass, we hold that Cullison cannot simultaneously maintain his action for invasion of privacy and for trespass. For those reasons, we affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on this count.

IV. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Count four alleges an intentional infliction of emotional distress. This tort has not been recognized in this state. The definition of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is that “one who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress_” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965). It is the intent to harm one emotionally that constitutes the basis for the tort of an intentional infliction of emotional distress. We hold that under proper circumstances, liability will attach to a defendant for an intentional infliction of emotional distress, but the facts in this case do not support a finding that the Medleys intended to cause emotional injury to Cullison. Cullison points to evidence that the Medleys knew that he “disliked” guns and, therefore, argues that a jury could infer from this knowledge that Ernest’s wearing of a gun was intended to inflict emotional injury on Cullison. We believe that this fact, standing alone, cannot be stretched into such an inference without breaking. The trial court properly entered summary judgment on count four of Cullison’s complaint.

CONCLUSION

For all of the reasons stated above, we hereby accept transfer of this cause, vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals, reverse the entry of summary judgment as to the counts alleging trespass and assault, and affirm the entry of summary judgment on the counts alleging invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and remand this cause to the trial court.

Becker, J.

— Jordan Brower, who alleges that Christopher and Theodore Ackerley made anonymous threatening telephone calls to him, appeals from a summary judgment dismissal of his claims against them. Because the threatened harm was insufficiently imminent to be actionable as civil assault, we hold the assault claim was appropriately dismissed. But we reverse and remand for trial on the tort of outrage, rejecting the argument that Brow-er’s alleged emotional distress was not severe.

FACTS

In deciding whether Brower has properly been denied the right to take his case to trial, we do not evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, nor do we decide whether Brower’s allegations are true. Instead the question is whether the applicable law would permit a reasonable jury to find in his favor. Because we decide only legal issues and not factual ones, we make our determination de novo, according no particular deference to the decision of the trial court. 1 We describe the evidence in the record, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, in a light most favorable to plaintiff Brower as the nonmoving party in the summary judgment proceeding. 2

The plaintiff, Jordan Brower, is a Seattle resident active in civic affairs. Christopher and Theodore Ackerley, in their early twenties at the time of the alleged telephone *90 calls, are two sons of the founder of Ackerley Communications, Inc., a company engaged in various activities in Seattle including billboard advertising. Brower perceived billboard advertising as a visual blight. Based on his own investigation, he concluded that Ackerley Communications had erected numerous billboards without obtaining permits from the City of Seattle; had not given the City an accurate accounting of its billboards; and was maintaining a number of billboards that were not on the tax rolls. In January, 1991, Brower presented his findings to the City. When the City did not respond, Brower filed suit in October of 1991 against the City and Ackerley Communications seeking enforcement of the City’s billboard regulations.

Within two days an anonymous male caller began what Brower describes as "a campaign of harassing telephone calls” to Brower’s home that continued over a period of 20 months. The first time, the caller shouted at Brower in an aggressive, meanspirited voice to "get a life” and other words to that effect. Brower received at least one more harassing telephone call by January of 1992.

When the City agreed to pursue Brower’s complaints about the billboard violations, Brower dropped his suit. In April of 1992, the City made a public announcement to the effect that Ackerley Communications had erected dozens of illegal billboards. Within a day of that announcement, Brower received an angry telephone call from a caller he identified as the same caller as the first call. In a loud, menacing voice, the caller told Brower that he should find a better way to spend his time. Two days later there was another call telling Brower to "give it up.”

In July of 1992, shortly after the City Council passed a moratorium on billboard activity, Brower received another angry anonymous call. The male voice swore at him and said, "You think you’re pretty smart, don’t you?” Brower says he seriously wondered whether he was in any danger of physical harm from the caller. Over the following months Brower continued to receive calls from an *91 unidentified male who he says "belittled me, told me what a rotten person I was, and who used offensive profanity.”

On July 19, 1993, the City Council passed a new billboard ordinance. At about 6:30 that evening an angry-voiced man telephoned Brower and said "dick” in a loud voice and hung up. At about 7:30 p.m. the same caller called and said, "I’m going to find out where you live and I’m going to kick your ass.” At 9:43 p.m. Brower received another call from a voice disguised to sound, in Brower’s words, "eerie and sinister.” The caller said "Ooooo, Jordan, oooo, you’re finished; cut you in your sleep, you sack of shit.” Brower recorded the last two calls on his telephone answering machine.

Brower made a complaint to the police, reporting that he was very frightened by these calls. Because Brower had activated a call trapping feature of his telephone service after the third telephone call, the police were able to learn that the call had originated in the residence of Christopher Ackerley. When contacted by the police, Christopher Ackerley denied making the calls. He said Brower’s telephone number was in his apartment, and that his brother Ted Ackerley had been in the apartment at the time and perhaps had made the calls.

The City filed no criminal charges based on the police report. Brower then brought this civil suit against Christopher and Theodore Ackerley seeking compensation for the emotional distress he suffered as the result of the telephone calls. According to Brower, he interpreted the calls of July 19 as a death threat, and felt "hunted down.” He experienced feelings of panic, terror, and insecurity as well as a rising pulse, light-headedness, sweaty palms, sleeplessness, and an inability to concentrate that lasted for some time afterward: "Every day I come home, I worry that someone has burned our house down, or if my wife is late from work, whether she has been harmed.”

The Ackerleys moved for summary judgment. Brower responded primarily with his own declaration describing the telephone calls and his reaction to them. The trial *92 court dismissed all claims. Brower appeals, arguing that his declaration raises a genuine issue of material fact as to his claims of assault, negligence, and the tort of outrage. The Ackerleys respond that the telephone calls described by Brower do not amount to civil assault, and that the distress Brower claims he suffered as a result was insufficiently severe to support his other causes of action.

Damages for mental and emotional distress are generally available merely upon proof of an intentional tort such as assault. 3 In such cases, there is no requirement that emotional distress be severe or manifested by physical symptoms in order to be compensable as an element of damages. 4 Therefore, we initially examine Brower’s proof to determine whether he has presented proof of an intentional tort.

ASSAULT

The elements of civil assault have not been frequently addressed in Washington cases. The gist of the cause of action is "the victim’s apprehension of imminent physical violence caused by the perpetrator’s action or threat.” 5 In the 1910 case of Howell v. Winters, 6 the Supreme Court relied on a definition provided in Cooley, Torts (3d ed.):

An assault is an attempt, with unlawful force, to inflict bodily injuries upon another, accompanied with the apparent present ability to give effect to the attempt if not prevented. Such would be the raising of the hand in anger, with an apparent purpose to strike, and sufficiently near to enable the purpose to be carried into effect; the pointing of a loaded pistol at one who is in its range; the pointing of a pistol not loaded at one who is not aware of that fact and making an *93 apparent attempt to shoot; shaking a whip or the fist in a man’s face in anger; riding or running after him in threatening and hostile manner with a club or other weapon; and the like. The right that is invaded here indicates the nature of the wrong. Every person has a right to complete and perfect immunity from hostile assaults that threaten danger to his person; 'A right to live in society without being put in fear of personal harm.’ 7

The discussion in Howell accords with the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which defines assault, in relevant part, as follows:

(1) An actor is subject to liability to another for assault if

(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and

(b) the other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension. 8

According to section 31 of the Restatement, words alone are not enough to make an actor liable for assault "unless together with other acts or circumstances they put the other in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with his person.”7 * 9 The comments to section 31 indicate infliction of emotional distress is a better-suited cause of action when mere words cause injury, "even though the mental discomfort caused by a threat of serious future harm on the part of one who has the apparent intention and ability to carry out his threat may be far more emotionally disturbing than many of the attempts to inflict minor bodily contacts which are actionable as assaults.” 10

The Ackerleys argue that dismissal of Brower’s assault *94 claim was appropriate because the threatening words were unaccompanied by any physical acts or movements. Brower acknowledges that words alone cannot constitute an assault, but he contends the spoken threats became assaultive in view of the surrounding circumstances including the fact that the calls were made to his home, at night, creating the impression that the caller was stalking him.

"Whether the repeated use of a telephone to make anonymous threats constitutes acts or circumstances sufficient to render the threats assaultive is an issue we need not resolve because we find another issue dispositive: the physical harm threatened in the telephone calls to Brower was not imminent.

To constitute civil assault, the threat must be of imminent harm. As one commentator observes, it is "the immediate physical threat which is important, rather than the manner in which it is conveyed.” 11 The Restatement’s comment is to similar effect: "The apprehension created must be one of imminent contact, as distinguished from any contact in the future.” 12 The Restatement gives the following illustration: "A threatens to shoot B and leaves the room with the express purpose of getting his revolver. A is not liable to B.” 13

The telephone calls received by Brower on July 19 contained two explicit threats: "I’m going to find out where you live and I’m going to kick your ass”; and later, "you’re finished; cut you in your sleep.” The words threatened action in the near future, but not the imminent future. The immediacy of the threats was not greater than in the Restatement’s illustration where A must leave the room to get his revolver. Because the threats, however frightening, were not accompanied by circumstances indicating that the caller was in a position to reach Brower and *95 inflict physical violence "almost at once,” 14 we affirm the dismissal of the assault claim.

TELEPHONE HARASSMENT

In Cagle v. Burns & Roe, Inc., 15 the Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff to pursue emotional distress damages because the suit alleged a wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy which, the Court recognized, "can be accurately characterized as an intentional tort.” 16 According to Cagle, "recovery of emotional distress damages has been allowed in conjunction with many intentional or willful acts which violated a clear mandate of public policy.” 17 Relying on Cagle, Brower argues that even if the telephone calls do not amount to a civil assault, he has presented facts sufficient to show the defendants willfully violated the clear mandate of public policy manifested in a statute making telephone harassment at least a gross misdemeanor. 18

In Brower’s short presentation of this issue in his appel *96 late brief we discern the outline of an argument that telephone harassment, as defined by the criminal statute, should be recognized in civil law as an intentional tort. If telephone harassment is an intentional tort, then under Cagle damages are awardable for emotional distress without any threshold requirement of severity or physical symptoms.

The problem is that Brower did not make this argument below. His trial court brief on summary judgment discussed the criminal statute only in connection with his theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress, a theory Brower acknowledged as requiring some manifestation of "objective symptomatology.” 19 An issue not briefed or argued in the trial court will not be considered on appeal. 20 Whether criminal telephone harassment gives rise to an independent civil cause of action is an issue that must be left to another case.

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

As explained in a comment to section 46 of the Restatement of Torts, the law’s recognition of infliction of emotional distress as an independent basis of tort liability is relatively recent:

[Ejmotional distress may be an element of damages in many cases where other interests have been invaded, and tort liability has arisen apart from the emotional distress. Because of the fear of fictitious or trivial claims, distrust of the proof offered, and the difficulty of setting up any satisfactory boundaries to liability, the law has been slow to afford independent protection to the interest in freedom from emotional distress standing alone. It is only within recent years that the rule *97 stated in this Section has been fully recognized as a separate and distinct basis of tort liability, without the presence of the elements necessary to any other tort, such as assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, or the like. 21

A great deal of human conduct not otherwise tortious will cause emotional distress to other persons, sometimes by accident and sometimes by intention. When a plaintiff attempts to recover emotional distress damages in the absence of an independent basis of tort liability, there are special requirements with respect to damages. Requirements that the damage suffered be somehow extraordinary operates as a check against a flood of civil suits arising from nothing more than petty feuds and hurt feelings. 22

One liability-limiting rule applied in this state, as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hunsley v. Giard, is that a plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must show the distress to be manifested by "objective symptomatology” — i.e., "physical symptoms evidencing and resulting from the emotional distress.” 23 Following Hunsley, this court has consistently rejected *98 claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress in the absence of physical symptoms. In Shoemaker v. St. Joseph Hospital and Health Care Center, 24 the plaintiffs evidence showed that the plaintiff "suffered from sleep disturbances and nightmares, tearful outbursts, low energy level, and recurrent 'intrusive memories,’ ” but she was never under a doctor’s care, and never received or requested medication; her social and occupational functioning remained unimpaired, and her psychologist did not consider her clinically depressed. 25 On those facts, this court held the plaintiff failed as a matter of law to establish the objective symptomatology required by Hunsley, 26

Because Brower’s distress in reaction to the telephone calls was substantially similar to the plaintiffs symptoms in Shoemaker, we affirm the dismissal of Brower’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

OUTRAGE

The tort of intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, more commonly known as the tort of outrage, is another vehicle for the recovery of emotional distress damages in the absence of other tort remedies. 27 The Supreme Court has defined the elements of outrage as "(1) extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress; and (3) actual result to the plaintiff of severe emotional distress.” 28

For purposes of summary judgment, the Ackerleys do not dispute the characterization of the telephone calls as outrageous conduct, and they accept that any distress *99 experienced by Brower was intentionally or recklessly inflicted. Their challenge is limited to the third element— whether the resulting emotional distress was "severe.” 29

Brower describes reacting with acute anxiety to the final telephone calls. After the second of three calls received on the same evening, he set his security system, checked the door and window locks, and gathered his wife and cats in an upstairs bedroom. He was nervous and was looking out the windows every few minutes. He and his wife thought someone might already be there. Then the third call came threatening to "finish” him and cut him in his sleep. After that he remained vigilant in looking out the windows and was unable to fall asleep until after 2 a.m. His pulse went up, he got sweaty palms, and felt light-headed. He worried that if he left his home somebody would burn it down or break in. He says he was "very agitated and upset for days.” He was afraid to appear in public. Even after seeking a restraining order, he felt angry and humiliated and still feared that someone was going to harm him or his family. His sleeping patterns changed as his "mind was in such constant turmoil of fear and uncertainty that [he] was far too anxious to get to sleep at a reasonable hour.” Also, he would wake up in the night worrying about the threats. He says he became less effective as an activist and worried that his work would encourage more threats. His ability to concentrate deteriorated and he was more fatigued.

The Ackerleys initially contend Brower’s distress, as described, cannot be viewed as severe because it fails to identify "objective symptomatology.” That requirement, however, belongs to the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. No Washington case has incorporated *100 it into the tort of outrage. 30 Similarly the Restatement has recognized that bodily harm is not necessary. 31

Ackerleys next contend that Brower’s alleged distress is too insignificant to satisfy the severity requirement. "Complete emotional tranquillity,” as the Restatement observes, "is seldom attainable in this world, and some degree of transient and trivial emotional distress is a part of the price of living among people.” 32 Brower’s outrage claim was properly dismissed, according to the Ackerleys, because what he experienced was less severe than the distress described by the plaintiffs whose claims for outrage this court held properly dismissed in Spurrell v. Block 33 and Lawson v. Boeing. 34

The parent-plaintiffs in Spurrell asserted outrage after authorities removed their children from the home without the parents’ knowledge. This court first rejected the plaintiffs’ characterization of the defendants’ conduct as outrageous, and then also stated that plaintiffs’ claim of "one sleepless night, tears, loss of appetite, and anxiety” *101 failed to establish severe emotional distress. 35 In Lawson the plaintiff, a Boeing employee, was demoted to a non-supervisory position after a company investigation into complaints about his behavior. 36 In connection with an outrage claim against Boeing and its employees, the plaintiff asserted he suffered depression, sleeplessness, increased headaches, loss of libido and energy and loss of appetite. 37 This court held he had satisfied neither the first element (outrageous conduct) nor the third element (severe emotional distress). 38 The court added that the symptoms alleged by Lawson "are not 'signs of distress above that level which is a fact of life’ and do not constitute severe emotional distress.” 39

The conclusory analysis of the severity of the plaintiffs’ distress in both Lawson and Spurrell did not create an inflexible rule precluding all claims for outrage where the distress alleged is not more severe than the distress described in those cases, especially since in both cases the dismissals were driven primarily by the plaintiffs’ failure to establish outrageous conduct. 40 "When the conduct offered to establish the tort’s first element is not extreme, a court must withhold the case from a jury notwithstanding proof of intense emotional suffering. The situation is different when the alleged conduct sufficiently satisfies the first two elements, outrageous and extreme conduct, and intentional or reckless infliction of emotional harm. In such cases, we hold a case of outrage should ordinarily go to a jury so long as the court determines the plaintiff’s alleged damages are more than "mere annoyance, inconve *102 nience, or normal embarrassment” that is an ordinary fact of life. 41

Our holding is consistent not only with Spurrell and Lawson, but also with the Restatement. According to comment j in the Restatement, severe distress "must be proved; but in many cases the extreme and outrageous character of the defendant’s conduct is in itself important evidence that the distress has existed.” 42 In our view, this is such a case. Unlike the conduct considered in Spurrell and Lawson, the telephone harassment as alleged by Brower fits within the definition of a criminal statute, with no imaginable purpose except to cause emotional distress. For purposes of summary judgment, the Ackerleys do not dispute that a rational jury could conclude the entire episode was extreme and outrageous. 43 If a jury does eventually reach that conclusion, the extremity of the conduct is in itself important evidence of the severity of distress experienced by the target. Taking into consideration the threatening nature of the final calls, a jury could find from Brower’s description of his acute and enduring anxiety that he experienced more emotional distress than a person should ordinarily be expected to put up with as "a part of the price of living among people.” 44 We conclude Brower is entitled to take his outrage claim to a jury.

The dismissal of Brower’s claims for assault and negligent infliction of emotional distress is affirmed. The dismissal of his claim for the tort of outrage is reversed.

Kennedy, A.C.J., and Agid, J., concur.

Review denied at 134 Wn.2d 1021 (1998).