tort-of-outrage claim in Alabama

2017Any determination that Kirby did not suffer a work-related injury or that she was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits or medical treatment as a result of that injury could moot her claim asserting the tort of outrage because the refusal to pay for Kirby's medical treatment would then have been Jack's " 'insist[ance] upon [its] legal rights in a permissible way.' " Inmon , 394 So.2d at 368 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, Comment (g), at 76 (1948)).

2008In reaching that conclusion, the court acknowledged that “the record supports the conclusion that the management of In-mon’s investigation and termination may have been somewhat disorganized, and a humiliating experience for him personally.” 394 So.2d at 368 .

2003By extreme we refer to conduct so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society." In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Smitherman , [Ms. 1000684, May 2, 2003] 872 So.2d 833 (Ala. 2003), this Court held that the plaintiff's tort-of-outrage claim had been improperly submitted to the jury because the defendant in that case had acted within its right and the defendant's actions had not been accompanied with the "sound of fury." Id . at 840 (quoting Harrell v. Reynolds Metals Co.

2003In Harrell v. Reynolds Metals Co., 495 So.2d 1381 (Ala.1986), for example, this Court said: "[I]t would be intolerable in a civilized society to hold that an employer is guilty of outrageous conduct for merely discharging an employee at will.

1995Co. , 489 So.2d 573 (Ala. 1986), summary judgment in favor of Piedmont and Ms. Hart was proper on the tort of outrage claim." The same must be said under the facts of this case.

1989Co., 489 So.2d 573 (Ala.1986), summary judgment in favor of Piedmont and Ms. Hart was proper on the tort of outrage claim.

2012Co. of Illinois v. Griner, 809 So.2d 808 (Ala.2001), a tort-of-outrage claim will lie.

2011In Gunter v. Huddle, 724 So.2d 544 (Ala.Civ.App.1998), the court held that a consensual relationship between an physician and his patient did not support a tort-of-outrage claim.

2011In Gunter v. Huddle, 724 So.2d 544 (Ala.Civ.App.1998), the court held that a consensual relationship between an physician and his patient did not support a tort-of-outrage claim.

2011We also note that the trial court had the same opportunity to observe the witnesses as did the jury, and it presented the above-quoted language in its order denying Dr. O’Rear’s post-judgment motions, thus strengthening the presumption of correctness to be afforded the jury’s verdict. 3 Williford, supra, and Friendly Credit Union v. Campbell, 579 So.2d 1288 (Ala.1991).

2011We also note that the trial court had the same opportunity to observe the witnesses as did the jury, and it presented the above-quoted language in its order denying Dr. O'Rear's postjudgment motions, thus strengthening the presumption of correctness to be afforded the jury's verdict. [3] Williford, supra, and Friendly Credit Union v. Campbell, 579 So.2d 1288 (Ala.1991).

2011We also note that the trial court had the same opportunity to observe the witnesses as did the jury, and it presented the above-quoted language in its order denying Dr. O’Rear’s post-judgment motions, thus strengthening the presumption of correctness to be afforded the jury’s verdict. 3 Williford, supra, and Friendly Credit Union v. Campbell, 579 So.2d 1288 (Ala.1991).

2011We also note that the trial court had the same opportunity to observe the witnesses as did the jury, and it presented the above-quoted language in its order denying Dr. O'Rear's postjudgment motions, thus strengthening the presumption of correctness to be afforded the jury's verdict. [3] Williford, supra, and Friendly Credit Union v. Campbell, 579 So.2d 1288 (Ala.1991).

2008Hayes alleged, among other things, that the supervisor’s conduct amounted to an intentional infliction of emotional distress, i.e., that it support a tort-of-outrage claim, because, she stated, he had publicly accused her of “ ‘being a drug addict, a thief, a danger to the public and of failing to perform her duties’ ” as a nurse. 771 So.2d at 464 .

2008Since the release of Potts v. Hayes, supra, our supreme court has affirmed judgments on jury verdicts entered on a tort-of-outrage claim in two other cases— one involved a sexual assault on a minor and the other could be said to have involved “barbaric methods employed to coerce an insurance settlement.” See Potts v. Hayes, 771 So.2d at 465 .

2003By extreme we refer to conduct so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society." In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Smitherman , [Ms. 1000684, May 2, 2003] 872 So.2d 833 (Ala. 2003), this Court held that the plaintiff's tort-of-outrage claim had been improperly submitted to the jury because the defendant in that case had acted within its right and the defendant's actions had not been accompanied with the "sound of fury." Id . at 840 (quoting Harrell v. Reynolds Metals Co.

2002This Court observed that Wooley's allegation was "simply that Shewbart denied Wooley's claim with no arguable reason for doing so." Wooley , 569 So.2d at 717 .

1999This Court in Potts limited its holding to facts involving sexual harassment, stating, "[W]e expressly decline to hold that what constitutes sufficient evidence of ratification by an employer in a case of sexual harassment would be sufficient evidence of ratification in cases involving other intentional torts." 604 So.2d at 402 .

1999This Court in Potts limited its holding to facts involving sexual harassment, stating, "[W]e expressly decline to hold that what constitutes sufficient evidence of ratification by an employer in a case of sexual harassment would be sufficient evidence of ratification in cases involving other intentional torts." 604 So.2d at 402 .

1997On remand to this court, and in compliance with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Ex parte Graham, 702 So.2d 1215 (Ala.1997), the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as to the tort of outrage claim.