trageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct."'"' [Citations.] A defendant's conduct is 'outrageous' when it is so '"'extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.'"' [Citation.] . . . [¶] Liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress '"does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities." [Citation.]' [Citations.] . . . [¶] With respect to the requirement that the plaintiff show severe emotional distress, this court has set a high bar. 'Severe emotional distress means "'emotional distress of such substantial quality or enduring quality that no reasonable [person] in civilized society should be expected to endure it.'"' (Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. [(1993)] 6 Cal.4th [965], 1004.)" (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-1051.) Corona contends that Carlson's IIED claim fails because the evidence does not support the trial court's finding that he engaged in outrageous conduct and that Carlson suffered severe emotional distress as a result.

In Wong v. Tai Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, this court set forth the principles applicable to the present issue. "A claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort but the tort of negligence to which the traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply. [Citations.] [¶] In Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1980) 27 Cal.3d 916, the Supreme Court made it clear that to recover damages for emotional distress on a claim of negligence where there is no accompanying personal, physical injury, the plaintiff must show that the emotional distress was 'serious.' (Id. at pp. 927-930; see Burgess v. Superior Court [1992] 2 Cal.4th at p. 1073, fn. 6. ['[t]he requirement that the emotional distress suffered be "serious" has its origins in Molien']; Potter [v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993)] 6 Cal.4th at p. 999 [emotional distress must be 'serious']; Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 668 . . . ['serious'].) [¶] Moreover, the court explained, ' "serious emotional distress may be found where a reasonable [person], normally constituted, would be unable to adequately cope with the mental stress engendered by the circumstances of the case."