 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Snyder v. Medical Service Corporation of Eastern Washington12/13/2001
istress should be reversed.
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
"Negligence . . . is conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk. It necessarily involves a foreseeable risk, a threatened danger of injury , and conduct unreasonable in proportion to the danger." Hunsley v. Giard, 87 Wn.2d 424, 435, 553 P.2d 1096 (1976) (citing William L. Prosser, The Law of Torts sec. 43, at 250 (4th ed. 1971)). Each of these issues is a question of fact for the jury to resolve. Id. at 437.
The Hunsley court concluded "that the plaintiff who suffers mental distress has a cause of action; that is to say, the defendant has a duty to avoid the negligent infliction of mental distress." Id. at 435. Even so, the court also stated that "{n}ot every act which causes harm results in legal liability." Id. at 434. Some degree of emotional distress is a fact of life, and "the courts cannot guarantee a stress-free workplace." Bishop v. State, 77 Wn. App. 228, 234, 889 P.2d 959 (1995). Our courts have followed the principle that employers' handling of workplace disputes generally is not actionable:
The utility of permitting employers to handle workplace disputes outweighs the risk of harm to employees who may exhibit symptoms of emotional distress as a result. The employers, not the courts, are in the best position to determine whether such disputes should be resolved by employee counseling, discipline, transfers, terminations or no action at all. Id.
Nevertheless, Washington courts have recognized a claim for workplace negligent infliction of emotional distress:
{N}egligent infliction of emotional distress is a cognizable claim in the workplace when it does not arise solely from racial remarks and does not result from an employer's disciplinary acts or its response to a personality dispute. Chea v. Men's Warehouse, Inc., 85 Wn. App. 405, 407, 932 P.2d 1261, 971 P.2d 520 (1997), review denied, 134 Wn.2d 1002, 953 P.2d 96 (1998).
Both this legal precedent and sound policy considerations dictate that an employer be held responsible when the negligent acts of its supervisor cause emotional distress to an employee and those acts exceed acceptable employee discipline or the employer's reasonable response to a personality dispute.
Based on relevant Washington case law, to hold an employer liable for the negligent infliction of emotional distress by its supervisor in the workplace, an employee plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) the supervisor acted on the employer's behalf; (2) the supervisor failed to act with reasonable care; (3) the supervisor's acts exceeded acceptable employee discipline or the employer's reasonable response to a personality dispute; (4) the supervisor's negligent acts proximately caused injury to the plaintiff; and (5) the plaintiff's emotional distress is manifested by objective symptoms.
MSC contends that the facts alleged by Snyder involve nothing more than personality conflicts and workplace disputes. However, a jury could reasonably find that Hall's verbal threats and offensive touching constitute behavior beyond acceptable discipline or the reasonable response to a personality dispute.
While MSC represented in its employee handbook that the responsibilities of its supervisors include "promoting a safe and healthy work environment," the employer allowed Hall's interactions with her subordinates to be "authoritarian, belligerent, sarcastic, demeaning, and intimidating." CP at 143, 252.
When viewed in the light most favorable to Snyder, the evidence supports assertions that Hall's ab
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|