Plaintiff Whalen discovered upon his return from a trip that someone had left a message on his answering machine from an anonymous caller, to the effect that his dog had been found roaming at large, had been given poison, and would die within twenty-four hours unless the dog were treated immediately. Whalen took the dog to the veterinarian, who examined the animal and concluded that the dog had not ingested poison. Whalen filed suit for damages against Isaacs (the anonymous caller) for intentional infliction of emotional distress, believing that the story about the dog poisoning was a hoax. Under Georgia law, the question as to whether the facts supporting the plaintiff’s claim are sufficiently outrageous to constitute the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is decided by the trial judge. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The plaintiff’s evidence primarily consisted of incidents of conduct in which the defendant demonstrated hostility toward the plaintiff’s dog when it was unleashed and allowed to run onto the defendant’s property. The defendant, in a deposition, admitted making the telephone call, but explained that he was acting as a Good Samaritan and made the call to help save the life of the dog. The defendant further claimed that he was only relaying what he had been told about the dog by an unknown bicyclist. Which party should be awarded judgment?
Why?