Case Title: Barksdale v. ST. CLAIR COUNTY COM'N

Citation: 540 So. 2d 1389

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1989-03-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
540 So. 2d 1389 (1989)
James Alfred BARKSDALE
v.
ST. CLAIR COUNTY COMMISSION.
No. 87-975.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
March 3, 1989.
John F. Kizer, Jr., and Jeffrey W. Bennitt, Birmingham, for appellant.
Billy L. Church of Church, Trussell & Robinson, Pell City, for appellee.
JONES, Justice.
Plaintiff James Alfred Barksdale claimed damages for both the tort of outrage and breach of contract. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial judge granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict on both counts. We affirm the judgment based on the directed verdict.
Barksdale was employed by the St. Clair County Commission as a heavy equipment operator for over 13 years. He suffered several on-the-job injuries during the course of his employment and he received workmen's compensation benefits at various times. On December 12, 1984, Barksdale was injured again on the job and, as a result, appears to be totally disabled. Following this injury, Barksdale continued to receive full health benefits and workmen's compensation payments until March 1, 1985, at which time the health benefits were terminated by the Commission. Barksdale, alleging that this termination of benefits violated the provisions of the St. Clair County Employees Handbook "Handbook," sued for damages based on breach of contract and outrage.
We will first determine the standard of review to use on an appeal from a judgment based on a directed verdict. The granting of a directed verdict is not within the discretionary function of the trial court; thus, there is no presumption of correctness afforded such a ruling.
King Mines Resort, Inc. v. Malachi Mining & Minerals, Inc., 518 So. 2d 714, 716 (Ala.1987). Bearing this standard in mind, we hold that the trial court correctly directed a verdict for the Commission, because Barksdale failed to present any factual support for the two theories under which he seeks recovery.
In support of his claim based on breach of contract, Barksdale relies on provisions contained in the Handbook. We agree that, in the appropriate case, language contained in an employee handbook can be sufficient to create a binding contract:
Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Campbell, 512 So. 2d 725, 735 (Ala.1987).
Assuming that the Handbook did, in fact, create a contract, the next step is to examine the language of the Handbook to determine the terms of this contract. Section XI of the Handbook discusses the relationship between employee benefits and benefits under workmen's compensation:
This section continues, to discuss the insurance provided to full-time employees:
Barksdale contends that these two provisions, when read together, gave him a right to continue to receive full health benefits. We disagree. Even if these provisions do create a contract, as we will assume they do for the purposes of this review, they do not mandate that the Commission provide any benefits to Barksdale in the present situation. The record demonstrates that the Commission complied with any possible obligations it had as a result of the language contained in the Handbook. In fact, there was testimony to the effect that the Commission had actually provided more benefits to Barksdale than he was entitled to. Barksdale received full health benefits for over a year after he was disabled, and he continues to receive his workmen's compensation benefits. Testimony at trial showed that Barksdale was not treated differently from any other employee who filed for workmen's compensation. To the contrary, there was evidence to the effect that Barksdale had received benefits well in excess of those provided to other similarly situated employees. In any *1391 event, once Barksdale's sick leave and vacation time were exhausted, all he was entitled to receive was workmen's compensation, which he is currently receiving. Clearly, the Commission fulfilled any responsibilities it may have had under the Handbook; thus, there are no grounds for a breach of contract claim.
The claim based on the tort of outrage is also without merit. The tort of outrage has been recognized by this Court and defined as follows:
American Road Service Co v. Inmon, 394 So. 2d 361, 365 (Ala.1981).
Applying this standard, we conclude that Barksdale has not shown any actions by the Commission that were so extreme or outrageous as to warrant liability; nor has he shown the type of severe injury necessary to recover under this tort theory. Additionally, the record does not provide any indication that the alleged distress suffered by Barksdale was so extreme that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. Imposing liability in this case would not be reasonable and justified under the circumstances, particularly in light of Barksdale's failure to adequately allege any of the elements essential to a claim based on outrage. Therefore, the trial judge properly directed a verdict on this count.
There was no evidence presented that, if believed, would support a verdict for Barksdale on either claim. The judgment appealed from is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and SHORES, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.