Ashman v. Marshall's of MA, Inc.
244 Ga. App. 228, 535 S.E.2d 265 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Conduct that is merely insulting, rude, vulgar, or unkind, even when directed at a person with a known susceptibility, does not rise to the level of 'extreme and outrageous' conduct required to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress unless it goes beyond all reasonable bounds of decency.
Facts:
- Lindsay Ashman suffers from ataxia as a result of a car accident, which causes her to have a shaky and unbalanced stride.
- As Ashman exited a Marshall's store, uniformed off-duty Police Officer Gary Broom, working as security, observed her unsteady walk in the parking lot and approached.
- Ashman's friend, Casey Harris, explained that Ashman's condition was due to a car accident, to which Broom responded, 'don’t feed me that sh —.'
- From inside the car, Ashman displayed her handicapped parking permit so that Broom could see it.
- Upon seeing the permit, Broom responded, 'Hah man, she is all ‘fu— up.’'
- Broom then stated, 'you’ve got to understand where I’m coming from,' and walked away.
- Following the incident, Ashman suffered damage to her self-esteem, was embarrassed and humiliated, had difficulty interacting socially, and found her physical recovery hindered.
Procedural Posture:
- Lindsay Ashman sued Marshall’s of MA, Inc. and Gary Broom in a trial court for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the conduct was not outrageous.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Marshall’s and Broom on the grounds that the statements did not rise to the level of outrageousness necessary to support the claim.
- The trial court denied a separate motion for summary judgment from Marshall's, which argued that Broom had acted outside the scope of his employment.
- Ashman, as appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment against her to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
- Marshall's, as cross-appellant, appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment regarding the scope of employment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a security guard's use of vulgar and insulting language towards a person with a visible disability, after being informed of the disability, constitute conduct so extreme and outrageous as to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Miller, Judge
No. The security guard's conduct, while inappropriate and vulgar, does not rise to the high level of extreme and outrageous conduct required for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court determined that for conduct to be actionable, it must go beyond mere insults, indignities, or petty oppressions and be regarded as 'atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.' The court characterized Broom's comments as 'crass statements' that, while 'harsh, inappropriate, rude, vulgar, and unkind,' did not meet the essential threshold of 'major outrage' required for the tort. Citing precedent, the court concluded that 'mere tasteless, rude or insulting social conduct will not give rise to such a claim' and therefore affirmed the lower court's judgment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the extremely high bar plaintiffs must clear to succeed on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. It clarifies that even offensive and targeted insults directed at a vulnerable individual may not be legally sufficient if they don't cross the line into behavior considered 'utterly intolerable' by society. The ruling emphasizes that the tort is not intended to be a remedy for all rude or hurtful behavior, thereby protecting defendants from liability for what the court deems the 'vicissitudes of daily living.' This case serves as a key example for students of the distinction between morally reprehensible conduct and legally actionable conduct.
