Zielinski v. Clorox Company

Full title: ZIELINSKI v. CLOROX COMPANY et al

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jan 6, 1999

235 Ga. App. 886 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)

510 S.E.2d 856

Opinion

A97A0801.

DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1999

Tortious interference with employment. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Fryer, Senior Judge.

Bondurant, Mixson Elmore, M. Jerome Elmore, Frank M. Lowrey IV, Vincent R. Lauria, Murray Z. Kahn, for appellant.

Arrington Hollowell, Gary W. Diamond, Mark W. Wortham, Joni C. Hamilton, for appellees.

POPE, Presiding Judge.

Gary Zielinski sued the Clorox Company and William Castleberry for invasion of privacy. Zielinski also sued Castleberry for tortious interference with employment. The trial court directed verdicts in favor of Clorox on the invasion of privacy claim and in favor of Castleberry on the tortious interference with employment claim. The court submitted the invasion of privacy claim against Castleberry to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Castleberry.

Zielinski appealed to this court. In a five-division opinion we affirmed the directed verdict to Clorox on the invasion of privacy claim, but reversed both the directed verdict to Castleberry on the tortious interference with employment claim and the jury verdict for Castleberry on the invasion of privacy claim. Zielinski v. Clorox Co., 227 Ga. App. 760 ( 490 S.E.2d 448) (1997). In Division 1 of that opinion, we concluded that during the trial the court had not erred in excluding evidence of statements made by Castleberry because the statements are privileged under OCGA § 51-5-7.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case and reversed our conclusion that the statements are privileged under OCGA § 51-5-7. Zielinski v. Clorox Co., 270 Ga. 38 ( 504 S.E.2d 683) (1998). Accordingly, our evidentiary ruling in Division 1 of the opinion is vacated and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this Court.

The remainder of our opinion was not addressed by the Supreme Court and therefore still stands. Thus, the directed verdict to Clorox is affirmed, and both the directed verdict to Castleberry and the jury verdict in his favor are reversed.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. Johnson, C.J., and Blackburn, J., concur.

DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1999.