Lucas’ conduct despite prior knowledge and certainty of its effects on Wideman are sufficient to constitute her actions as reckless. This statement is supported in the controlling case, Jones v. Harris, 35 Md. App. 556, 371 A.2d 1104 (1977), in which the defendant’s actions are considered to be reckless disregard as the defendant wants to inflict emotional distress on the plaintiff, in addition to the fact that he knows that it is certain to cause the plaintiff emotional distress. In our case, Lucas has prior knowledge of Wideman’s anxiety caused by the Lucius Smith case, and she continues to post the tweet of a picture of his family and the GPS coordinates of his house. She has prior knowledge as she is a lawyer herself and therefore knows
