Hang v. Wages & Sons Funeral Home, Inc.

11 Citing cases

  1. Malibu Boats, LLC v. Batchelder

    347 Ga. App. 742 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    See also Coon v. The Medical Center , 300 Ga. 722, 734 (4) n. 8, 797 S.E.2d 828 (2017) (same). As a result, "[a] party claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must therefore show a physical impact resulting in physical injury."Hang v. Wages & Sons Funeral Home , 262 Ga. App. 177, 179, 585 S.E.2d 118 (2003). See also Lee , supra at 585 (I), 533 S.E.2d 82 (citing OB-GYN Assoc. of Albany v. Littleton , 259 Ga. 663, 665-666 (2) (A), (B), 386 S.E.2d 146 (1989).

  2. Phillips v. Marquis at Mt. Zion-Morrow

    305 Ga. App. 74 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 7 times
    Finding that a plaintiff who suffered a pecuniary loss when her wallet was stolen and car vandalized could not recover emotional-distress damages because the loss did not stem from an injury to her person

    See Lee v. State Farm c. Ins. Co., 272 Ga. 583, 585 (I), n. 3 ( 533 SE2d 82) (2000).Hang v. Wages Sons Funeral Home, 262 Ga. App. 177, 179-180 ( 585 SE2d 118) (2003). Accord Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 ( 412 SE2d 826) (1992); Westview Cemetery v. Blanchard, 234 Ga. 540, 544 (B) ( 216 SE2d 776) (1975).

  3. Clarke v. Freeman

    302 Ga. App. 831 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 15 times
    Recognizing negligent infliction of emotional distress claim even with no “impact” if conduct is willful or wanton

    (Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Hang v. Wages Son Funeral Home, 262 Ga. App. 177, 179-180 ( 585 SE2d 118) (2003). See also Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828 ( 412 SE2d 826) (1992).

  4. Kirkland v. Earth Fare, Inc.

    289 Ga. App. 819 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 18 times
    Listing the requirements of the Georgia impact rule

    In order to prevail on this claim, Kirkland must meet the requirements of the Georgia impact rule, which requires that he show that (1) he suffered a physical impact; (2) the physical impact caused him physical injury; and (3) the physical injury caused his mental suffering or emotional distress. It is undisputed that no physical impact occurred between Kirkland and any employee of Earth Fare; and there is no allegation or evidence of any physical injury to Kirkland. See Hang v. Wages Sons Funeral Home, 262 Ga. App. 177, 179 ( 585 SE2d 118) (2003). Nor does Kirkland's claim come under the "pecuniary loss" exception to the impact rule.

  5. Anderson v. Dunbar Armored, Inc.

    678 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (N.D. Ga. 2009)   Cited 581 times
    Finding that the plaintiff's race discrimination claims were barred because "nothing in her EEOC charge [alleging gender/pregnancy discrimination] suggests that she sought to complain about any type of racial discrimination"

    The Georgia impact rule requires that a plaintiff show that (1) he suffered a physical impact; (2) the physical impact caused him physical injury; and (3) the physical injury caused his mental suffering or emotional distress. Hang v. Wages Sons Funeral Home, 262 Ga.App. 177, 179, 585 S.E.2d 118 (2003).

  6. Anderson v. Dunbar Armored, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:08-CV-3639-BBM/AJB (N.D. Ga. Jul. 24, 2009)

    The Georgia impact rule requires that a plaintiff show that (1) he suffered a physical impact; (2) the physical impact caused him physical injury; and (3) the physical injury caused his mental suffering or emotional distress. Hang v. Wages Sons Funeral Home, 262 Ga. App. 177, 179, 585 S.E.2d 118 (2003).

  7. KILCHRIST v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, (S.D.Ind. 2004)

    No. 1:03-cv-02009-JDT-TAB (S.D. Ind. Jun. 30, 2004)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that the plaintiff's claim of sex discrimination was not within the scope of his E.E.O.C. charge describing race discrimination even though the two claims involved the same general conduct and individuals

    Georgia's impact rule has three elements: (1) a physical impact on the plaintiff; (2) the physical impact causes physical injury to the plaintiff; and (3) the physical injury to the plaintiff causes the plaintiff's mental suffering or emotional distress. Hang v. Wages Sons Funeral Home, Inc., 585 S.E.2d 118, 120 (Ga.App. 2003). However, Georgia law appears to carve out an exception to its "impact rule" in those cases where "malicious, willful or wanton" conduct is proved, despite a lack of physical injury or pecuniary loss.

  8. Coon v. Med. Ctr., Inc.

    300 Ga. 722 (Ga. 2017)   Cited 43 times
    Recognizing only "a single, carefully circumscribed exception to the physical impact rule" allowing a parent to recover where both parent and child suffer a physical impact and physical injuries, but the "parent's emotional distress arose not only from her physical injury but also from watching her child suffer and die"

    We agree with the Court of Appeals, which both before and after Lee has rejected the creation of an exception to the physical impact rule for cases involving the negligent mishandling of human remains. See Hang v. Wages & Sons Funeral Home, Inc. , 262 Ga.App. 177, 180-182, 585 S.E.2d 118 (2003) (involving the premature cremation of a family member's body before his viewing and funeral and post-cremation processing of the remains that removed bone fragments necessary for religious rituals); Hall v. Carney , 236 Ga.App. 172, 174, 511 S.E.2d 271 (1999) (involving the disinterment and removal of recently reburied remains of the plaintiff parents' stillborn child). Judgment affirmed.

  9. Holt v. Rickman

    368 Ga. App. 55 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    In this case, if Holt had sued Mathews — the person who allegedly committed intentional torts against her — then the impact rule would not apply. See Hang v. Wages & Sons Funeral Home , 262 Ga. App. 177, 180, 585 S.E.2d 118 (2003) ("where the defendant's conduct is malicious, wilful, or wanton, recovery can be had without the necessity of an impact") (citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied). But Holt has neither sued Mathews nor alleged that the defendants are vicariously liable for his intentionally tortious conduct.

  10. Eley v. Fedee

    362 Ga. App. 618 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 4 times
    Adopting the "bootstrapping of an extreme nature" argument

    Accordingly, we disapprove the holding in Warnock that the impact rule can only be applied to cases in which "negligent infliction of emotional distress" was alleged in the complaint. See Coon , 300 Ga. at 734 (4), 797 S.E.2d 828 ("Georgia follows the physical impact rule for claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress...."); Wilson v. Allen , 272 Ga. App. 172, 174 (1), n.4, 612 S.E.2d 39 (2005) ("We note that the cases cited by [appellee] in support of her argument pre-date our Supreme Court's decision in Lee , which clearly sets forth the elements of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress."); Hang v. Wages & Sons Funeral Home , 262 Ga. App. 177, 179, 585 S.E.2d 118 (2003) (properly outlines impact rule and then states without citation of authority: "A party claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must therefore show a physical impact resulting in physical injury."). We note that similarly troubling language was used in McConnell v. Dept. of Labor , 345 Ga. App. 669, 814 S.E.2d 790 (2018), in a sovereign immunity analysis.