In Sacco v. High Country Independent Press (1995), 271 Mont. 209, 896 P.2d 411, the Montana Supreme Court adopted the definition of serious emotional distress from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, 46, comment j at 77-78: The Montana Supreme Court determined that an independent cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress will arise under circumstances where serious or severe emotional distress to the plaintiff was the reasonable and foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligent acts or omission. In Sacco, the Supreme Court determined that Montana would employ the definition of severe emotional distress that was provided for in The Restatement (Second) of Torts, 46, which provides: "Emotional distress passes under various names, such as mental suffering, mental anguish, mental or nervous shock, or the like. It includes all highly unpleasant mental reactions, such as fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, worry, and nausea. It is only where it is extreme that liability arises. Complete emotional tranquility 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. The law intervenes only where the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. The intensity and the duration of the distress are factors to be considered in determining its severity. Severe distress must be proved. ..." Sacco at 234. The Montana Supreme Court also determined that the Restatement (Second) of Torts 46 provides a guideline in delineating the respective roles of the court and the jury in deciding negligent infliction of emotional distress cases: It is for the Court to determine whether on the evidence, severe emotional distress can be found; it is for the jury to determine whether, on the evidence, it has in fact existed . . . In Sacco, the Montana Supreme Court also determined that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is properly considered when addressing the subject of punitive damages, and that it is at that time that the culpability and intentional nature of a defendant's conduct is considered. In Sacco, the Court determined that in cases involving a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, that it is after trial that the Court determines whether the Plaintiff has introduced sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case.