Court Opinion

ID: 9931795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:29:31.176104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:30.183496
License: Public Domain

I disagree with that portion of the majority opinion which has the effect of allowing damages in all tort cases for emotional distress in the absence of any physical injury whatsoever. This is a departure from the long standing rule in this jurisdiction.
With the exception of those cases where the emotional distress was intentionally inflicted, Engle v. Simmons,148 Ala. 92, 41 So. 1023 (1906), arose from a breach of contract,Stead v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Alabama, 346 So.2d 1140
(Ala. 1977), or resulted from the defendant's fraudulent conduct, Holcombe v. Whitaker, 294 Ala. 430, 318 So.2d 289
(1975), our courts have consistently recognized the rule that physical injury is a prerequisite to recovery for mental anguish. See e.g., East Alabama Express Co. v. Dupes, 271 Ala. 504, 124 So.2d 809 (1960); B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Hughes,239 Ala. 373, 194 So. 842 (1940); Gregath v. Bates, 359 So.2d 404
(Ala.Civ.App. 1978).
TORBERT, C.J., concurs.