U.S.A. Oil, Inc. v. Smith
415 So.2d 1098, 1982 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 1156 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a claim for the tort of outrage, a plaintiff must provide legally sufficient evidence that the defendant's conduct was the cause of their emotional distress and that the distress was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.
Facts:
- Anne Smith had been employed as a bookkeeper by U.S.A. Oil, Inc. since 1973 or 1974, where her duties included managing accounts receivable, including her husband's.
- On June 29, 1977, the president of U.S.A. Oil, Joe Saxon, told Smith to take a leave of absence, promising a month's pay and a future $500 retainer; this conversation effectively served as her termination, and the retainer was never paid.
- Following her termination, U.S.A. Oil sent Smith a letter on September 1, 1977, outlining several discovered financial irregularities.
- The letter accused Smith of failing to bill her husband for two gasoline deliveries, improperly handling company funds and invoices, charging personal home remodeling materials to the company, and retaining a company calculator.
- The letter concluded with a statement that U.S.A. Oil was considering presenting the matter to the grand jury.
- Smith testified that the events caused her to see a doctor, affected her sleep, and made her cry, while her husband testified she was a 'very nervous person' who had to take tranquilizers.
Procedural Posture:
- U.S.A. Oil, Inc. sued Anne Smith for fraud in a state trial court.
- Anne Smith filed a counterclaim against U.S.A. Oil for the tort of outrage.
- At the jury trial, the court granted a directed verdict for Anne Smith on the fraud claim.
- U.S.A. Oil moved for a directed verdict on the outrage counterclaim, which the trial court denied.
- The jury found for Anne Smith on her outrage counterclaim and awarded her $10,000 in punitive damages.
- U.S.A. Oil filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- U.S.A. Oil, as appellant, appealed the denial of its post-trial motions to the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
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 an employer's conduct of terminating an employee, threatening her with grand jury proceedings, and suing her for fraud constitute the tort of outrage when the employee's evidence of emotional distress is limited to general testimony of being upset, having trouble sleeping, and taking tranquilizers, without specific proof of causation or severity?
Opinions:
Majority - Holmes, J.
No. The employer's conduct is not sufficient to establish liability for the tort of outrage because the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary burden for two essential elements of the tort: causation and severity of emotional distress. The court adopted the four-element test for outrage from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, which requires a plaintiff to prove: (1) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe. Here, the plaintiff's proof failed on causation because testimony that she 'is a very nervous person' suggested a pre-existing condition, and there was no specific evidence linking her symptoms to the defendant's actions. The proof also failed on severity, as the law requires distress 'so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it,' and the plaintiff's testimony about sleep problems and being upset constitutes the kind of 'trivial emotional distresses' common to everyday life, not the severe distress required for recovery.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high evidentiary threshold for the tort of outrage, also known as Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), in Alabama. The court's ruling emphasizes that it is not enough for a defendant's conduct to be insulting or upsetting; a plaintiff must present specific proof that the conduct directly caused severe emotional distress. By holding that general claims of nervousness, insomnia, and being upset are legally insufficient without more, the decision significantly narrows the scope of actionable claims and prevents the tort from becoming a remedy for all of life's common hardships, thereby requiring plaintiffs to provide concrete evidence of both a direct causal link and an extreme level of suffering.
Unlock the full brief for U.S.A. Oil, Inc. v. Smith