 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Worpenberg v. Kroger Co.3/8/2002
Local Union 20 (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 453 N.E.2d 666, the Ohio Supreme Court recognized the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress as embodied in 1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965) 71, Section 46(1). That section imposes liability upon anyone "who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another," resulting in either emotional or bodily harm. In order to establish the tort, a plaintiff is required to show the following:
(1)the defendant either intended, or should have anticipated, the emotional distress caused by his or her actions;
(2)the conduct was "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree" that it transgressed all societal bounds of decency and should be regarded as "atrocious," and "utterly intolerable";
(3)the conduct proximately caused the psychic injury ; and
(4)the emotional distress was "serious," meaning that a reasonable person would be unable to adequately cope with it.
1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965) 73, Section 46, Comment d; Yeager, supra, at 375, 453 N.E.2d at 671; Paugh v. Hanks (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 72, 451 N.E.2d 759, paragraph 3a of the syllabus.
Worpenberg argues that both Oeters's and Greenert's behavior was sufficiently outrageous to meet the legal criteria for liability because they insinuated that she had taken money when they both knew that no money was missing. Her argument is premised upon the supposition that Oeters and Greenert engaged in an unnecessarily hurtful charade. Both Oeters and Greenert testified, however, that they were genuinely concerned that the unusual number of misrings attributed to Worpenberg revealed some undetermined wrongdoing. As Oeters testified upon deposition, the number of misrings was difficult to explain for an employee of Worpenberg's high caliber, and so she and Greenert decided that "there was enough of a pattern that * * * it couldn't be a one-time mistake, a one-time whoops."
Oeters testified that she and Greenert were more concerned with why Worpenberg had made so many misrings, not necessarily whether any money was missing. According to Oeters, when pressed for an explanation of the misrings, and specifically the $200 misring, Worpenberg jumped to the conclusion that she was being accused of theft, which was not necessarily the case.
Greenert's testimony corroborated that of Oeters. He testified that the investigation began as a result of co-workers reporting that Worpenberg was "forced balancing." The co-worker tips were validated when an investigation revealed an unusually high number of misrings attributable to Worpenberg. With respect to the misring involving $200, Greenert admitted that he had been told that there was an overage even with the misring. Greenert testified, however, that this information did not completely allay his suspicion of Worpenberg. He stated that he still did not understand why the misring had occurred and that he wanted an explanation for what he described as a "$200 discrepancy from what was recorded on the video sales report as to what was recorded on the detail tape." According to Greenert, he was still asking himself, " here did the $200 go?" He testified that even with the overage, Worpenberg "couldn't explain why she recorded these sales as she did," and that Worpenberg admitted that she had engaged in the practice of forced balancing.
Given this backdrop for the discussion that occurred among Worpenberg, Oeters, and Greenert, we agree with the trial court that nothing was said or done in the meeting that would have justified a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Certainly there wa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|