Slocum
v. Food Fair Stores of
Supreme
Court of
100
So.2d 396.
Prosser,
p. 51-53
Facts:
An employee
of the defendant insulted the plaintiff while she was inquiring about a price
of an item in the defendant’s store. The
plaintiff claimed that the language caused her to suffer a heart attack and
other injuries. The defendant moved to
dismiss the suit based on failure to state a cause of action. The motion was granted, and the plaintiff
appealed.
Issue: Does insulting language
constitute a violation of a legally protected right? In other words, does it constitute a tort in
itself?
Rule: An action for intentional
infliction of mental distress may lie if the distress is severe, or if an
insult is suffered by a patron of a common carrier such as an employee of a
hotel, theater, or telegraph office.
Analysis: The court asserts that a
line should be drawn between emotional distress that is severe and distress
that is not severe. The line that the court
chooses is that “there is liability only for conduct exceeding all bounds which
could be tolerated by society”. The court
further determines that mere vulgar insults do not exceed such bounds.
Conclusion: The motion to dismiss is affirmed.
Notes
and Questions
1. Insult by
itself is not a tort because it is not entirely beyond the pale of acceptability.
2. Magruder thus
argues that insults and cursing can actually sometimes be positive, and thus it
is not at all in the court’s interest to restrict such behavior broadly. In fact, he suggests, allowing insults and
cursing may actually prevent more destructive torts.
3. Based on the
present case, the
4. We might ask
if the language itself matters.
5. This would
appear to be the famous exception for “fighting words”.
6. It looks like
the standard for common carriers is not at all uniform.