Court Opinion

ID: 9599675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:20:37.087341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:16.864459
License: Public Domain

Eldridge, Judge,
concurring specially.
While I concur entirely with the majority, I feel that several factors should be further developed.
This action was brought under theories of negligence and warranty and not intentional tort, although the plaintiff could have brought the action as an intentional tort, because an unused but unwrapped condom does not accidentally become mixed in chicken salad and served up to a patron without an intentional act that was *501“malicious, wilful, or wanton.” For purposes of damages, it is the nature of the conduct, i.e., malicious, wilful, or wanton, rather than the theory of recovery that authorizes the recovery of general damages for mental pain and suffering.
Mental pain and suffering are a form of general damages. OCGA §§ 51-12-1; 51-12-2 (a); 51-12-6. In Westview Cemetery v. Blanchard, 234 Ga. 540, 543 (2) (B) (216 SE2d 776) (1975), the Supreme Court stated: “[w]here there is a physical injury or pecuniary loss, compensatory damages include recovery for accompanying ‘mental pain and suffering’ even though the tortious conduct complained of is merely negligent. [Cits.]” This was an action against a cemetery for intentional disinterment of a body without first obtaining authorization, and damages under OCGA § 51-12-6 (formerly Ga. Code Ann. 105-2003) were sought in addition to special damages. The Supreme Court went on to hold: “[i]f ‘mental pain and suffering’ [are] not accompanied by physical injury or pecuniary loss, recovery is allowed only if the conduct complained of was ‘malicious, wilful, or wanton.’ Montega Corp. v. Hazelrigs, [229 Ga. 126 (189 SE2d 421) (1972)]. . . . The Montega test for recovery for a purely mental injury is essentially the same as the test for recovery for ‘punitive damages.’ See Standard Oil Co. v. Mt. Bethel &c. Church, 230 Ga. 341 (196 SE2d 869) (1973).” Id. at 544-545. Accord Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 (412 SE2d 826) (1992).
In OB-GYN Assoc. &c. v. Littleton, 259 Ga. 663, 666 (2) (A) (386 SE2d 146) (1989), the Supreme Court held: “[w]e take this opportunity to clarify our rule regarding impact and now hold that the impact which will support a claim for damages for emotional distress must result in a physical injury.” Accord Ryckeley v. Callaway, supra at 828. “On the other hand, where the conduct is malicious, wilful or wanton, recovery can be had without the necessity of an impact. [Cit.]” Id. “[E]ven malicious, wilful or wanton conduct will not warrant a recovery for the infliction of emotional distress if the conduct was not directed toward the plaintiff.” Id. at 829. However, in this case the intentional misconduct was directed at the plaintiff, as one of the small group of patrons ordering chicken salad, although the employee may or may not have known which customer would receive it.