Opinion ID: 700522
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judgment on the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim

Text: 27 Roadway asserts that the district court erred in finding that the company's conduct was sufficiently outrageous to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Georgia law. Whether a claim rises to the requisite level of outrageousness and egregiousness to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law. Yarbray, 409 S.E.2d at 838. 28 As stated above, in order to prevail in Georgia on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; (2) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; (3) the defendant's conduct caused emotional distress; and (4) the resulting emotional distress was severe. Yarbray, 409 S.E.2d at 837. In order to sustain this cause of action, the defendant's conduct, in light of the totality of the circumstances, must have been so terrifying or insulting as naturally to humiliate, embarrass or frighten the plaintiff. Moses v. Prudential Ins. Co., 187 Ga.App. 222, 369 S.E.2d 541, 542-44 (1988). Moreover, the existence of a special relationship in which one person has control over another, as in the employer-employee relationship, may produce a character of outrageousness that otherwise might not exist. Bridges v. Winn-Dixie Atlanta, Inc., 176 Ga.App. 227, 335 S.E.2d 445, 448 (1985). In fact, 29 [t]he workplace is not a free zone in which the duty not to engage in willfully and wantonly causing emotional distress through the use of abusive or obscene language does not exist. Actually, by its very nature, it provides an environment more prone to such occurrences because it provides a captive victim who may fear reprisal for complaining, so that the injury is exacerbated by repetition, and it presents a hierarchy of structured relationships which cannot easily be avoided. The opportunity for commission of the tort is more frequently presented in the workplace.... 30 Coleman v. Housing Auth. of Americus, 191 Ga.App. 166, 381 S.E.2d 303, 306 (1989). 31 We conclude, considering the totality of the circumstances, that the district court properly granted judgment for Lightning on his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. We note that Georgia courts have upheld awards under this theory for conduct far less outrageous than Roadway's. See, e.g., Anderson v. Chatham, 190 Ga.App. 559, 379 S.E.2d 793, 799-800 (1989).