Hollomon v. Keadle - 326 Ark. 168, 931 S.W.2d 413 (1996)

Rule:

To succeed on a claim for the tort of outrage, the plaintiff must prove: 1) the defendant intended to inflict emotional distress or knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; 2) the conduct was extreme and outrageous, and was utterly intolerable in a civilized community; 3) the defendant's conduct was the cause of the plaintiff's distress; and 4) the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.

Facts:

Plaintiff Mary Hollomon filed a claim for the tort of outrage against her former employer, Dr. W. R. Keadle. Plaintiff alleged that Keadle cursed, harangued, and belittled her throughout her two years of employment, causing her to develop stomach problems for which she was required to take medication. The trial court found that the plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient as a matter of law to state a claim for the tort of outrage, and further, that the First Amendment protected Keadle’s statements. The trial court accordingly granted Keadle’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Were the plaintiff’s allegations insufficient as a matter of law to state a claim for the tort of outrage, thereby warranting the grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that plaintiff had failed to establish that her employer was made aware that she was not a person of ordinary temperament or that she was peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress by reason of some physical or mental condition or peculiarity. Although the employer gave the plaintiff medication for her stomach, there was no evidence that her employer was ever aware that he was the cause of the upset stomach. According to the court, abrasive profanity alone was not sufficient reason to bring a cause of action. Absent a showing that the employer had knowledge that the employee was peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress by reasons of some physical or mental condition or peculiarity, and proceeded in the face of such knowledge, summary judgment was proper.