Richardson v. Hennly
434 S.E.2d 772 · Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1993
Facts
Bonnie Richardson, a receptionist, developed severe allergic reactions, including hospitalizations, to her coworker J.R. Hennly, Jr.'s pipe smoke, despite his awareness of her condition. Her employment was terminated for excessive absenteeism shortly after her second hospitalization. Richardson sued Hennly for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and her employer, First Federal, for violating the Georgia Equal Employment for the Handicapped Code.
Issue
The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Hennly on Richardson's claims of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A secondary issue is whether the trial court erred in denying First Federal's motion for summary judgment, particularly regarding the Georgia Equal Employment for the Handicapped Code claim.
Holding
The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Hennly, finding that pipe smoke could constitute battery and that a jury could find his conduct extreme and outrageous for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for First Federal, concluding Richardson met the definition of "handicapped" and that the employer failed to demonstrate entitlement to judgment on the GEEHC claim.
Rule
A civil battery can occur through indirect unlawful touching, such as the "precipitation" of a material substance like pipe smoke, if intentionally directed to cause harm. Intentional infliction of emotional harm does not require physical impact if the conduct is extreme and outrageous, a determination that can be a jury question considering factors like awareness of susceptibility and the workplace context. The Workers' Compensation Act does not bar tort claims for injuries from a third person's willful act for personal reasons, and a "handicapped individual" under Georgia law is one whose impairment substantially limits major life activities, affecting employment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.