Court Opinion

ID: 9563560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:41:53.809981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:55.205011
License: Public Domain

*679Deen, Judge.
It was held in Hamby v. Edmunds Motor Co., 80 Ga. App. 209 (55 SE2d 743): “Where the injuries alleged appear to have resulted entirely from fright or shock, unaccompanied by physical contact, in order to set forth a cause of action it is necessary to show either (1) that the injuries were the natural and proximate result of the fright or shock, that this result was or should have been foreseen with reasonable certainty by the defendant, and that the act was one of such gross carelessness, coupled with a knowledge of the probable physical results as amount to wilful disregard of the consequences ; or (2) that the fright was brought about by the deliberate and malicious intention on the part of the defendant to injure the plaintiff.” The petition includes allegations that “defendant Beavers and E. A. Jones . . . while in the scope of their employment . . . with deliberate and malicious intention to injure plaintiff, and with the knowledge that the accusations made were false and unfounded, did accuse plaintiff of stealing the sum of $208,” as well as allegations that the defendant’s acts had the effect of causing plaintiff to become physically sick, nervous, shocked, distraught, and under the care of a doctor for approximately 11 months up to the time of filing the petition, that she is suffering from mental illness, has been permanently injured, will have to have special prescriptive medicine for the rest of her life, and because of the injuries set out is now unable to find employment although she has attempted to do so. It is also alleged that Beavers, individually as an agent for the defendant company, was fully aware that the natural consequences of such wilful misconduct would be the plaintiff’s resulting shock and breakdown of her mental and nervous system. Allegations stating the knowledge and intention of the opposite party usually constitute allegations of fact rather than conclusions, even as against a special demurrer. Stewart Oil Co. v. Bryant, 93 Ga. App. 191 (91 SE2d 48); Georgia N. R. Co. v. Hathcock, 93 Ga. App. 72 (91 SE2d 145); Georgia Power Co. v. Blum, 80 Ga. App. 618 (3a) (57 SE2d 18); Warner Bros. Pictures v. Stanley, 56 Ga. App. 85 (6) (192 SE 300); Nelson v. Estill, 190 Ga. 235 (3) (9 SE2d 73); Jackson v. Co-op Cab Co., 102 Ga. App. 688 (117 SE2d *680627); Johnston v. Dollar, 83 Ga. App. 219 (63 SE2d 408; Dodd v. Slater, 101 Ga. App. 362 (114 SE2d 170). Clear proof that employees of the defendant corporation, knowing the plaintiff had not committed a theft, informed the plaintiff they had instructions from the home office to put her in jail if the alleged shortage were not made up and “that they were going to immediately call the police and have her locked up unless she paid them the money right now” demonstrates wilful and tortious misconduct for which an action will lie. This does not mean that an employer has no right to investigate a shortage or even, in a proper case, to point out the likely results of misconduct on the part of the employee, but knowledge that the accusation is untrue coupled with a threat of immediate harm if money is not paid over is no less than an attempt to extort money by threat of violence and is as much an invasion of a private right of the individual as any other right, such as the right of privacy. Nor is the petition defective in failing to show that the plaintiff has been damaged. “Where physical or mental impairment flows naturally as a direct consequence of the tort, there has been injuria in its legal sense, and recovery may be had both for it and the accompanying fright and mental suffering. Hines v. Evans, 25 Ga. App. 829 (105 SE 59); Williamson v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 127 Ga. 125 (56 SE 119).” Pinkerton Nat. Detective Agency v. Stevens, 108 Ga. App. 159, 166 (132 SE2d 119). And see Marcelli v. Teasley, 72 Ga. App. 421 (33 SE2d 836); Candler v. Smith, 50 Ga. App. 667, 673 (179 SE 395); Atlanta Hub Co. v. Jones, 47 Ga. App. 778, 780 (171 SE 470).
It is recognized that under the facts alleged the plaintiff’s discharge, with or without cause, would not give basis for the right of action which she seeks to establish nor is any part of this petition predicated on the discharge as the foundation of the claim for damages.
This case is not in conflict with Barry v. Baugh, 111 Ga. App. 813 (143 SE2d 489), where it was held that abusive language alone will not constitute a tort, and where the words used were not spoken with the intention of coercing the plaintiff, injuring her, or influencing her conduct. Nor is it in conflict *681with Towler v. Jackson, 111 Ga. App. 8 (140 SE2d 295) where the defendant telephoned the plaintiff for the sole purpose of acquiring legitimate information, and the fact that the plaintiff became frightened and suffered a miscarriage could not reasonably have been foreseen by him.
The trial court did not err in overruling the general demurrers to the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols, P. J., Hall and Eberhardt, JJ., concur. Felton, C. J., concurs specially. Pannell, J., concurs in the judgment. Bell, P. J., Frankum. and Jordan, JJ., dissent.