Facts
In the case of Holt v. Rickman, Brenazia Holt sought damages against an apartment complex’s owners and manager for severe emotional distress after waking up to a maintenance worker in her bed. In Plaintiff’s Complaint, she also included a claim for punitive damages, alleging that Defendants acted with “willful misconduct, wantonness, or the entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences.”
During the litigation of the case, Plaintiff testified that although she suffered no physical injuries and did not miss work because of the incident, she would have dreams about the incident and wake up thinking someone was in her bed. Plaintiff recalled the maintenance worker touching her head while he pulled the covers down. However, he did not touch any other part of Plaintiff’s body before fleeing from the room.
The Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Georgia’s impact rule barred Plaintiff’s negligence claims since she did not sustain any physical injuries from the incident. The trial court granted Defendant’s Motion because Plaintiff “failed to present evidence of a physical injury caused by the physical impact of the [maintenance worker].” Plaintiff appealed.
Issues & Holdings
The issue in this case is whether Plaintiff suffered a physical injury to overcome the impact rule in a negligence claim. The Court held that even though “unlawful touching” constitutes a physical injury for purposes of an intentional tort, “unlawful touching” does not amount to a physical injury for purposes of a negligence claim.
Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment because a negligence claim that seeks damages for emotional distress requires a physical impact that caused a physical injury—this is known as the “impact rule.” Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828, 828 (412 SE2d 826) (1992).
The impact rule has three elements that a plaintiff must show for a negligence claim that seeks recovery for emotional distress damages. If a plaintiff does not meet any of these requirements, the plaintiff is barred from recovery. The three elements are (1) the plaintiff “suffered a physical impact,” (2) the physical impact caused a physical injury, and (3) the plaintiff endured mental suffering or emotional distress as a result. An exception to the impact rule is when a defendant’s conduct is malicious, willful, or wanton. Hang v. Wages & Sons Funeral Home, 262 Ga. App. 177, 180 (585 SE2d 118) (2003).
Although the Plaintiff in this case alleged punitive damages and that the Defendants’ acted with willful misconduct and wantonness, Plaintiff provided no evidence of this to the trial court to overcome a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff attempted to argue that she had a physical injury due to the maintenance worker’s “unlawful touching.” In a claim for assault and battery, “any unlawful touching of a personal’s body, even though no physical injury ensues, violates a personal right and constitutes a physical injury to that person.” Therefore, Plaintiff argues that when the maintenance worker touched her head while pulling the covers down, she sustained a physical injury.
The Court disagreed with that argument because Plaintiff brought a negligence claim and not an intentional tort claim for assault and battery. If Plaintiff alleged that Defendant committed an intentional tort against her, the impact rule would not apply. However, a negligence claim requires an impact and physical injury that caused mental suffering or emotional distress. Eley v. Fedee, 362 Ga. App. 618 (1), 624 (869 SE2d 566) (2022).
Conclusion
Holt v. Rickman reminds us that damages for emotional distress must be accompanied by evidence of physical injury when those damages are sought under a negligence theory. If a plaintiff has mental suffering or distress from an incident with no physical injury, the claim could be brought as an intentional tort so that the impact rule would not apply.
To learn more about The Champion Firm and the personal injury practice areas we cover, visit our main website here. If you’re an attorney seeking to refer a case or partner with us as co-counsel, learn more here.
Citation: Holt v. Rickman et al., No. A23A0612 (Ga. Ct. App. June 7, 2023)
