Court Opinion

ID: 9645114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:13:02.933295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:23.220662
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Rehear
Defendants have filed a petition to rehear complaining of our holding that plaintiff’s declaration stated a good cause of action.
Most of such complaint seems due to a mistaken notion of learned counsel that this holding was based upon a *671violation of onr statute known as the Right-to-Work Law (T.C.A. secs. 50-208 to 50-212); and it is said that the declaration, as finally amended, charged no such violation and afforded no basis for our holding.
Our opinion shows our holding was based on the common law; that at common law “ ‘the intentional infliction of temporal damage is a cause of action, which, as a matter of substantive law, whatever may be the form of pleading, requires a justification if the defendant is to escape’ ” (opinion, at page 694); that defendants could not justify their infliction of such damage to plaintiff at common law, by showing their purpose was to deny him the right to work “because he was a non-union man, ’ ’ and thus advance their interest as union men (opinion, at page 694); and that still less could they justify such conduct under the common law of this state since the enactment of our statutes guaranteeing the right to work alike to union and non-union men and outlawing the all-union shop or union monopoly.
Petitioners urge some other matters which have been fully considered, but we do not think they require any further discussion than that which we have already undertaken in our former opinion.
The petition presents no new matter of fact or law overlooked and nothing not already fully considered and determined by us in our former decision; and we are satisfied to adhere to that decision.
The petition is, therefore, denied at petitioner’s cost.