Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesappealtrialmotionsummary judgmentpunitive damagesappellantappellee
plaintiffdefendantdamagesappealtrialmotionsummary judgmentpunitive damagesappellantappellee

Related Cases

Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 782 F.Supp.2d 911
View Case »
Murray v. Laborers Union Local No. 324, 55 F.3d 1445, 149 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2457, 130 Lab.Cas. P 11,345, 130 Lab.Cas. P 11,367, 31 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1222, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9305
View Case »
Beverly Glen Music, Inc. v. Warner Communications, Inc., 178 Cal.App.3d 1142, 224 Cal.Rptr. 260
View Case »
In re Berlin & Denmar Distributors, Inc., Not Reported in B.R. Rptr., 2014 WL 2178027
View Case »
Drouhard-Nordhus v. Rosenquist, 301 Kan. 618, 345 P.3d 281
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828, 412 S.E.2d 826

Facts

Appellees/plaintiffs brought suit against appellants/defendants for damages allegedly suffered by plaintiffs due to defendants' conduct in damaging part of a private burial ground in which some of plaintiffs' ancestors were buried. The trial court granted defendants a partial summary judgment on the issues of punitive damages and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and, as to the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, held that there existed a question of fact concerning whether the damage done to the gravesites was done with reckless or wanton disregard for plaintiffs' rights.

Appellees/plaintiffs brought suit against appellants/defendants for damages allegedly suffered by plaintiffs due to defendants' conduct in damaging part of a private burial ground in which some of plaintiffs' ancestors were buried. The trial court granted defendants a partial summary judgment on the issues of punitive damages and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and, as to the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, held that there existed a question of fact concerning whether the damage done to the gravesites was done with reckless or wanton disregard for plaintiffs' rights.

Issue

Whether the developers' conduct in damaging a private burial ground supported a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress by the descendants.

Whether the developers' conduct in damaging a private burial ground supported a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress by the descendants.

Rule

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. However, where the conduct is malicious, wilful or wanton, recovery can be had without the necessity of an impact, provided the conduct was directed at the plaintiff.

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. OB–GYN Assoc. v. Littleton, 259 Ga. 663, 386 S.E.2d 146 (1989). On the other hand, where the conduct is malicious, wilful or wanton, recovery can be had without the necessity of an impact.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining whether the developers' conduct was directed at the plaintiffs. It found that there was no evidence that the developers' actions, even if malicious or wanton, were aimed at the plaintiffs, thus failing to meet the criteria for recovery of emotional distress. The court emphasized the importance of the 'impact rule' and the necessity for the conduct to be directed at the plaintiffs to warrant recovery.

Applying that holding to the facts of the present case would yield a result consistent with the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants on the claim for emotional distress: since there was no impact on any of the plaintiffs so as to support a recovery based on negligent conduct, and there was no evidence that any conduct by defendants which the plaintiffs assert was malicious, wilful or wanton was directed at any of the plaintiffs, there was no right in any of the plaintiffs to recover for the emotional distress they alleged was caused them by the damage to the cemetery.

Conclusion

The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants, as there was no evidence that the developers' conduct was directed at the plaintiffs.

Judgment reversed.

Who won?

Developers prevailed in the case because the court found that their conduct did not support a claim for emotional distress as it was not directed at the descendants.

Developers prevailed in the case because the court found that their conduct did not support a claim for emotional distress as it was not directed at the descendants.

You must be