impact rule in Georgia

2023A plaintiff’s failure to meet any one of the three requirements of the impact rule bars recovery even in cases “in which the circumstances portend a claim of emotional distress.” Id. against all defendants. 3 The court also ruled that Holt was not entitled to summary judgment because the evidence “presents questions of fact as to whether the Defendants exercised ordinary care in their hiring and retention of Mr. Mathews and as to the foreseeability aspect of Ms. Holt’s premises liability claim.” This ruling is not at issue on appeal. 4 In this case, Holt’s claims against the defendants all sou

2023“In sum, nothing in 7 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Eley v. Fedee, 362 Ga. App. 618 , 629 (1) (a) ( 869 SE2d 566 ) (2022), Doyle, J., concurring, quoting Lee, 272 Ga. at 587 (II). 4 this case suggests an expanded class of victims, a risk of fraud, or causal remoteness [justifying] the impact rule.”8 In light of this, if the victim is not a mere bystander to the alleged tortious conduct, Georgia courts unnecessarily apply the impact rule.9 The plaintiff in this case has alleged that the defendants’ misconduct caused her a distinct psychological harm that flows directly from their choice

2015All the Justices concur. 1 “[F]or a pecuniary loss to support a claim for damages for emotional distress, the pecuniary loss must occur as a result of a tort involving an injury to the person even though this injury may not he physical.” OB-GYN Assoc. of Albany v. Littleton, 259 Ga. 663, 667 (B) ( 386 SE2d 146 ) (1989). 2 The impact rule may be summarized as follows: “In a claim concerning negligent conduct, a recovery for emotional distress is allowed only where there is some impact on the plaintiff, and that impact must be a physical injury.” Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 ( 412 SE2d 826

2015All the Justices concur. 1 “[F]or a pecuniary loss to support a claim for damages for emotional distress, the pecuniary loss must occur as a result of a tort involving an injury to the person even though this injury may not he physical.” OB-GYN Assoc. of Albany v. Littleton, 259 Ga. 663, 667 (B) ( 386 SE2d 146 ) (1989). 2 The impact rule may be summarized as follows: “In a claim concerning negligent conduct, a recovery for emotional distress is allowed only where there is some impact on the plaintiff, and that impact must be a physical injury.” Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 ( 412 SE2d 826

2022While the parlance “negligent infliction of emotional distress” has crept into our case law since the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in Lee,8 and a 8 See Coon, 300 Ga. at 734 (4) (“Georgia follows the physical impact rule for claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress. . . .”); Wilson v. Allen, 272 Ga. App. 172, 174 (1), n.4 ( 612 SE2d 39 ) (2005) (“We note that the cases cited by [appellee] in support of her argument pre-date our Supreme Court’s decision in Lee, which clearly sets forth the elements of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional 12 negligence claim seeking on

2020See, e.g., Coon v. Medical Center, Inc., 335 Ga. App. 278, 283 ( 780 SE2d 118 ) (2015) (using public policy exception to apply Georgia law where there was a “significant difference” on the impact rule from Alabama law), affirmed on other grounds, 300 Ga. 722 ; Carroll Fulmer Logistics Corp. v. Hines, 309 Ga. App. 695 ( 710 SE2d 888 ) (2011) (difference in measure of damages for wrongful death contravened Georgia’s public policy).

2025Moreover, their reliance on Bruscato v. O’Brien, 307 Ga. App. 452, 458 (1) ( 705 SE2d 275 ) (2010), is misplaced, as that case holds the impact rule is inapplicable to claims for medical malpractice — and there is no such claim in the present case. 16 As set forth above, the trial court did not err in granting Dr. Umpierrez’s motion for summary judgment.

2025Moreover, their reliance on Bruscato v. O’Brien, 307 Ga. App. 452, 458 (1) ( 705 SE2d 275 ) (2010), is misplaced, as that case holds the impact rule is inapplicable to claims for medical malpractice — and there is no such claim in the present case. 16 As set forth above, the trial court did not err in granting Dr. Umpierrez’s motion for summary judgment.

2025Put another way, the expenses incurred as 7 The Joneses cite our decision in Grizzle v. Norsworthy, 292 Ga. App. 303 ( 664 SE2d 296 ) (2008), in support of their contention that the type of property damage Perry suffered can support a claim for emotional distress.

2025We went on to address the conductor’s alternative argument concerning the pecuniary loss rule, and we noted that he could not recover based on that exception to the impact rule because he “failed to show that his personal property was damaged in the collision.” Id. at 306 (2).

2022Accordingly, we disapprove the holding in Warnock that the impact rule can only be applied to cases in which “negligent infliction of emotional distress” was alleged in the complaint.9 distress.”); Hang v. Wages & Sons Funeral Home, 262 Ga. App. 177, 179 ( 585 SE2d 118 ) (2003) (properly outlines impact rule and then states without citation of authority: “A party claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must therefore show a physical impact resulting in physical injury.”). 9 We note that similarly troubling language was used in McConnell v. Dept. of Labor, 345 Ga. App. 669 ( 814 SE2

2022Accordingly, we disapprove the holding in Warnock that the impact rule can only be applied to cases in which “negligent infliction of emotional distress” was alleged in the complaint.9 distress.”); Hang v. Wages & Sons Funeral Home, 262 Ga. App. 177, 179 ( 585 SE2d 118 ) (2003) (properly outlines impact rule and then states without citation of authority: “A party claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must therefore show a physical impact resulting in physical injury.”). 9 We note that similarly troubling language was used in McConnell v. Dept. of Labor, 345 Ga. App. 669 ( 814 SE2

2016Co. v. Lam, 248 Ga. App. 134, 138 (2) ( 546 SE2d 283 ) (2001). 10 Smith v. Stewart, 291 Ga. App. 86, 101 (5) (b) ( 660 SE2d 822 ) (2008) (where the plaintiff asserted a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on a character in a novel that allegedly portrayed her as alcoholic and promiscuous, the 20 construed as asserting a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, such that the impact rule and the pecuniary loss exception may be applicable, the record shows that the appellants did not address any such claim in their motion for summary judgment, and Maia did n

2016Co. v. Lam, 248 Ga. App. 134, 138 (2) ( 546 SE2d 283 ) (2001). 10 Smith v. Stewart, 291 Ga. App. 86, 101 (5) (b) ( 660 SE2d 822 ) (2008) (where the plaintiff asserted a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on a character in a novel that allegedly portrayed her as alcoholic and promiscuous, the 20 construed as asserting a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, such that the impact rule and the pecuniary loss exception may be applicable, the record shows that the appellants did not address any such claim in their motion for summary judgment, and Maia did n

2018See, e.g., OCGA § 52-7-2 (public policy to "promote safety for persons and property in and connected with the use, operation, and equipment of vessels"), OCGA § 52-7-18 (d) ("Powered vessels approaching nonpowered vessels shall reduce their speed so that their wake shall not endanger the life or property of those occupying the nonpowered vessel."). 7 As a result, we cannot say at this stage of the proceedings, as a matter of law, that a watercraft's contact with water, including a collision with a wall of water such as a wake, 8 which results in swamping due to another's negligence, does not s

2018See, e.g., OCGA § 52-7-2 (public policy to "promote safety for persons and property in and connected with the use, operation, and equipment of vessels"), OCGA § 52-7-18 (d) ("Powered vessels approaching nonpowered vessels shall reduce their speed so that their wake shall not endanger the life or property of those occupying the nonpowered vessel."). 7 As a result, we cannot say at this stage of the proceedings, as a matter of law, that a watercraft's contact with water, including a collision with a wall of water such as a wake, 8 which results in swamping due to another's negligence, does not s

2022Svcs., 262 Ga. App. 293, 295 (1) ( 585 SE2d 664 ) (2003). 10 a third circumstance in which the impact rule does not apply.

2022Svcs., 262 Ga. App. 293, 295 (1) ( 585 SE2d 664 ) (2003). 10 a third circumstance in which the impact rule does not apply.

2021See Malibu Boats, LLC v. Batchelder, 347 Ga. App. 742 , 746-747 (2) ( 819 SE2d 315 ) (2018) (jury question existed as to whether second element of impact rule was met where child “began vomiting and hyperventilating” after collision with water) (punctuation omitted); Chambley v. Apple Restaurants, 233 Ga. App. 498, 500 (1) ( 504 SE2d 551 ) (1998) (jury question existed as to whether the plaintiff’s vomiting and nausea upon eating 4 part of a salad containing a concealed, unwrapped condom constituted a physical injury for purposes of the impact rule).

2021See Malibu Boats, LLC v. Batchelder, 347 Ga. App. 742 , 746-747 (2) ( 819 SE2d 315 ) (2018) (jury question existed as to whether second element of impact rule was met where child “began vomiting and hyperventilating” after collision with water) (punctuation omitted); Chambley v. Apple Restaurants, 233 Ga. App. 498, 500 (1) ( 504 SE2d 551 ) (1998) (jury question existed as to whether the plaintiff’s vomiting and nausea upon eating 4 part of a salad containing a concealed, unwrapped condom constituted a physical injury for purposes of the impact rule).

2014Zion-Morrow, LLC, 305 Ga. App. 74, 77 ( 699 SE2d 58 ) (2010); 1 Furthermore, I agree with the parties’ observation that the plaintiff cannot recover, pursuant to the impact rule, damages for any emotional distress resulting from his witnessing the death of his friend and its aftermath.

2014Zion-Morrow, LLC, 305 Ga. App. 74, 77 ( 699 SE2d 58 ) (2010); 1 Furthermore, I agree with the parties’ observation that the plaintiff cannot recover, pursuant to the impact rule, damages for any emotional distress resulting from his witnessing the death of his friend and its aftermath.

2022It has long been established that the impact rule applies to claims “concerning negligent conduct.” Id. at 584 (I); Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 ( 412 SE2d 826 ) (1992); Hamilton v. Powell, Goldstein, Frazer and Murphy, 252 Ga. 149, 150 ( 311 SE2d 818 ) (1984).

2022It has long been established that the impact rule applies to claims “concerning negligent conduct.” Id. at 584 (I); Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 ( 412 SE2d 826 ) (1992); Hamilton v. Powell, Goldstein, Frazer and Murphy, 252 Ga. 149, 150 ( 311 SE2d 818 ) (1984).

2025(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Malibu Boats v. Batchelder, 347 Ga. App. 742 , 744-745 (1) ( 819 SE2d 315 ) (2018); see also Contour Sierra, 370 Ga. App. at 84 (4) (a).

2021See Malibu Boats, LLC v. Batchelder, 347 Ga. App. 742 , 746-747 (2) ( 819 SE2d 315 ) (2018) (jury question existed as to whether second element of impact rule was met where child “began vomiting and hyperventilating” after collision with water) (punctuation omitted); Chambley v. Apple Restaurants, 233 Ga. App. 498, 500 (1) ( 504 SE2d 551 ) (1998) (jury question existed as to whether the plaintiff’s vomiting and nausea upon eating 4 part of a salad containing a concealed, unwrapped condom constituted a physical injury for purposes of the impact rule).

2022It has long been established that the impact rule applies to claims “concerning negligent conduct.” Id. at 584 (I); Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 ( 412 SE2d 826 ) (1992); Hamilton v. Powell, Goldstein, Frazer and Murphy, 252 Ga. 149, 150 ( 311 SE2d 818 ) (1984).

2022It has long been established that the impact rule applies to claims “concerning negligent conduct.” Id. at 584 (I); Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 ( 412 SE2d 826 ) (1992); Hamilton v. Powell, Goldstein, Frazer and Murphy, 252 Ga. 149, 150 ( 311 SE2d 818 ) (1984).

2022While the parlance “negligent infliction of emotional distress” has crept into our case law since the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in Lee,8 and a 8 See Coon, 300 Ga. at 734 (4) (“Georgia follows the physical impact rule for claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress. . . .”); Wilson v. Allen, 272 Ga. App. 172, 174 (1), n.4 ( 612 SE2d 39 ) (2005) (“We note that the cases cited by [appellee] in support of her argument pre-date our Supreme Court’s decision in Lee, which clearly sets forth the elements of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional 12 negligence claim seeking on

2022While the parlance “negligent infliction of emotional distress” has crept into our case law since the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in Lee,8 and a 8 See Coon, 300 Ga. at 734 (4) (“Georgia follows the physical impact rule for claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress. . . .”); Wilson v. Allen, 272 Ga. App. 172, 174 (1), n.4 ( 612 SE2d 39 ) (2005) (“We note that the cases cited by [appellee] in support of her argument pre-date our Supreme Court’s decision in Lee, which clearly sets forth the elements of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional 12 negligence claim seeking on

2019The Restatement of Torts 2d, §456 (1965), provides: “If the actor’s negligent conduct has so caused any bodily harm to another as to make him liable for it, the actor is also subject to liability for (a) fright, shock, or other emotional disturbance resulting from bodily harm or from the conduct which causes it, and (b) further bodily harm resulting from such emotional disturbance.” “The impact rule may be summarized as follows: ‘In a claim concerning negligent conduct, a recovery for emotional distress is allowed only where there is some impact on the plaintiff, and that impact must be a phys

2019The Restatement of Torts 2d, §456 (1965), provides: “If the actor’s negligent conduct has so caused any bodily harm to another as to make him liable for it, the actor is also subject to liability for (a) fright, shock, or other emotional disturbance resulting from bodily harm or from the conduct which causes it, and (b) further bodily harm resulting from such emotional disturbance.” “The impact rule may be summarized as follows: ‘In a claim concerning negligent conduct, a recovery for emotional distress is allowed only where there is some impact on the plaintiff, and that impact must be a phys

2020See, e.g., Coon v. Medical Center, Inc., 335 Ga. App. 278, 283 ( 780 SE2d 118 ) (2015) (using public policy exception to apply Georgia law where there was a “significant difference” on the impact rule from Alabama law), affirmed on other grounds, 300 Ga. 722 ; Carroll Fulmer Logistics Corp. v. Hines, 309 Ga. App. 695 ( 710 SE2d 888 ) (2011) (difference in measure of damages for wrongful death contravened Georgia’s public policy).

2020See, e.g., Coon v. Medical Center, Inc., 335 Ga. App. 278, 283 ( 780 SE2d 118 ) (2015) (using public policy exception to apply Georgia law where there was a “significant difference” on the impact rule from Alabama law), affirmed on other grounds, 300 Ga. 722 ; Carroll Fulmer Logistics Corp. v. Hines, 309 Ga. App. 695 ( 710 SE2d 888 ) (2011) (difference in measure of damages for wrongful death contravened Georgia’s public policy).

2014After citing Lee and the impact rule, this Court focused upon 3 See OB-GYN Assoc. of Albany v. Littleton, 261 Ga. 664 ( 410 SE2d 121 ) (1991) (“Littleton IV”). 4 Importantly, Owens is binding precedent under our rules.

2014After citing Lee and the impact rule, this Court focused upon 3 See OB-GYN Assoc. of Albany v. Littleton, 261 Ga. 664 ( 410 SE2d 121 ) (1991) (“Littleton IV”). 4 Importantly, Owens is binding precedent under our rules.

2012Clarke v. Freeman, 302 Ga. App. 831, 836 (1) ( 692 SE2d 80 ) (2010) (The trial court erred in ruling that the plaintiffs’ claims for emotional distress were barred by the impact rule where the complaint alleged that they suffered emotional injuries due to the defendants’ wilful, wanton, or malicious conduct that was directed at them.); see also Vasquez v. Smith, 259 Ga. App. 79, 82 ( 576 SE2d 59 ) (2003) (“[AJctual physical injury ... is not required to support a claim for battery, which is an intentional tort.”).

2012Clarke v. Freeman, 302 Ga. App. 831, 836 (1) ( 692 SE2d 80 ) (2010) (The trial court erred in ruling that the plaintiffs’ claims for emotional distress were barred by the impact rule where the complaint alleged that they suffered emotional injuries due to the defendants’ wilful, wanton, or malicious conduct that was directed at them.); see also Vasquez v. Smith, 259 Ga. App. 79, 82 ( 576 SE2d 59 ) (2003) (“[AJctual physical injury ... is not required to support a claim for battery, which is an intentional tort.”).

2023The complaint unequivocally states in the opening paragraph that the plaintiffs “were not physically injured as a result of the gunfire.” In addition, the complaint later states that the plaintiffs “were fortunate to escape physically unharmed from the experience.” While the plaintiffs argue that Georgia courts have expansive views of impact and physical injury, and they assert that they detailed in their trial brief that they “were showered in glass as the rear window shattered[,]” and “bullets flew into the vehicle, hitting the seats upon which they were sitting and lodging in the door next

2023The complaint unequivocally states in the opening paragraph that the plaintiffs “were not physically injured as a result of the gunfire.” In addition, the complaint later states that the plaintiffs “were fortunate to escape physically unharmed from the experience.” While the plaintiffs argue that Georgia courts have expansive views of impact and physical injury, and they assert that they detailed in their trial brief that they “were showered in glass as the rear window shattered[,]” and “bullets flew into the vehicle, hitting the seats upon which they were sitting and lodging in the door next

2022The division in which this dicta appears is physical precedent only, and the Supreme Court of Georgia later pointed out on certiorari that impact rule considerations “are irrelevant to the threshold question of whether the State has waived its sovereign immunity. . . .” Dept. of Labor v. McConnell, 305 Ga. 812, 814 (2) ( 828 SE2d 352 ) (2019).

2022The division in which this dicta appears is physical precedent only, and the Supreme Court of Georgia later pointed out on certiorari that impact rule considerations “are irrelevant to the threshold question of whether the State has waived its sovereign immunity. . . .” Dept. of Labor v. McConnell, 305 Ga. 812, 814 (2) ( 828 SE2d 352 ) (2019).

2022Co., 227 Ga. App. 815, 816 ( 490 SE2d 501 ) (1997). 6 Jefferson v. Houston Hosps., 336 Ga. App. 478, 487 (3) (c), (e) ( 784 SE2d 837 ) (2016). 9 injury.7 Compare Grizzle v. Norsworthy, 292 Ga. App. 303, 305 (1) (a) ( 664 SE2d 296 ) (2008) (trial court erred in granting summary judgment based upon impact rule where doctor’s affidavit created issue of fact as to whether physical impact of car with train caused physical injury to train conductor).

2022Co., 227 Ga. App. 815, 816 ( 490 SE2d 501 ) (1997). 6 Jefferson v. Houston Hosps., 336 Ga. App. 478, 487 (3) (c), (e) ( 784 SE2d 837 ) (2016). 9 injury.7 Compare Grizzle v. Norsworthy, 292 Ga. App. 303, 305 (1) (a) ( 664 SE2d 296 ) (2008) (trial court erred in granting summary judgment based upon impact rule where doctor’s affidavit created issue of fact as to whether physical impact of car with train caused physical injury to train conductor).

2022In cases such as those, where the plaintiff is physically impacted but uninjured through mere luck, the impact rule (which requires that the physical impact result in 32 Cf. Mears v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 225 Ga. App. 636, 640 (2) (a) (484 SE2d 659) (1997) (“We previously have indicated that a series of acts allegedly causing emotional distress should be viewed cumulatively, rather than in isolation.”); Anderson v. Chatham, 190 Ga. App. 559, 567 (8) (379 SE2d 793) (1989) (“While the objected-to language might not, taken in isolation, rise to a level of conduct actionable under the law fo

2022In cases such as those, where the plaintiff is physically impacted but uninjured through mere luck, the impact rule (which requires that the physical impact result in 32 Cf. Mears v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 225 Ga. App. 636, 640 (2) (a) (484 SE2d 659) (1997) (“We previously have indicated that a series of acts allegedly causing emotional distress should be viewed cumulatively, rather than in isolation.”); Anderson v. Chatham, 190 Ga. App. 559, 567 (8) (379 SE2d 793) (1989) (“While the objected-to language might not, taken in isolation, rise to a level of conduct actionable under the law fo

2022“In cases where mere negligence is not relied on, but the conduct complained of is malicious, wilful, or wanton, mental pain and suffering may be recovered without” application of the impact rule, Montega Corp. v. Hazelrigs, 229 Ga. 126, 127 ( 189 SE2d 421 ) (1972), provided that it is directed toward the plaintiff.

2022“In cases where mere negligence is not relied on, but the conduct complained of is malicious, wilful, or wanton, mental pain and suffering may be recovered without” application of the impact rule, Montega Corp. v. Hazelrigs, 229 Ga. 126, 127 ( 189 SE2d 421 ) (1972), provided that it is directed toward the plaintiff.

2022While this Court “may affirm the judgment of a lower court so long as it is right for any reason,” (citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Reed v. Reed, 295 Ga. 574, 578 (2) (761 SE2d 326) (2014), the issue addressed by the parties below and on appeal (application of the impact rule), as well as by the trial court, also provides a basis for this Court to affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Mayorga’s negligence claim.

2022While this Court “may affirm the judgment of a lower court so long as it is right for any reason,” (citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Reed v. Reed, 295 Ga. 574, 578 (2) (761 SE2d 326) (2014), the issue addressed by the parties below and on appeal (application of the impact rule), as well as by the trial court, also provides a basis for this Court to affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Mayorga’s negligence claim.