Ashman v. Marshall's of Ma - 244 Ga. App. 228, 535 S.E.2d 265 (2000)

Rule:

Actionable conduct for intentional infliction of emotional distress does not include insults, threats, indignities, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other vicissitudes of daily living but must go beyond all reasonable bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Factors include the existence of a relationship in which one person has control over another, the actor's awareness of the victim's particular susceptibility, and the severity of the resultant harm. In all events, major outrage in the language or conduct complained of is essential to the tort.

Facts:

Appellant, Lindsay Ashman, suffered from ataxia as a result of a car accident, which caused her to have a shaky and unbalanced stride. As appellant approached her car, she stopped and wobbled in her walk. She unlocked the car from the passenger side and got in. In the parking lot, appellee, Gary Broom, an off-duty police officer employed by Marshall’s of MA, Inc., observed appellant and her friend and approached. Appellee made crass statements with obscenities about appellant's ailment. Consequently, appellant sued Marshall’s of MA, Inc. and Gary Broom for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment to both Marshall's and Broom on the ground that the statements did not rise to the level of outrageousness necessary to support the claim. The court denied Marshall's motion for summary judgment which had asserted that Broom's statements were made outside the scope of his duty as an in-store security guard. Appellant appealed the grant of summary judgment to Marshall’s and Broom. Marshall’s cross-appealed the denial of summary judgment on the alternative ground. 

Issue:

Did appellee’s conduct rise to the requisite level of outrageousness to sustain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that appellee off-duty officer's crass statements simply did not rise to the requisite level of major outrage. Although appellee off-duty officer's statements were harsh, inappropriate, rude, vulgar, and unkind, the court found that his conduct did not meet the threshold of outrageousness and egregiousness necessary to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Thus, the court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellees. Appellee employer's cross motion for summary judgment on the grounds that appellee off-duty officer was outside the scope of his duty as in-store security guard was denied as moot.