Grantham v. Vanderzyl

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Dr. Vanderzyl on Tammy Grantham's tort-of-outrage claim arising from an operating-room incident involving blood and surgical refuse. The court held that the alleged conduct and resulting distress did not meet Alabama's stringent standard for outrage. It dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the portion of the appeal concerning lost-income damages and damages based on fear of contracting a communicable disease because the Rule 54(b) certification did not make those damages issues final.

Holdings

1. An order precluding recovery of particular items or species of damages is not final under Rule 54(b) when the plaintiff may still pursue other damages on the same claims; therefore, the appeal concerning lost-income damages and fear-of-disease damages must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
2. The alleged conduct did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required for Alabama's narrowly construed tort of outrage, and summary judgment for Dr. Vanderzyl was proper.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the alleged conduct, viewed in the light most favorable to Grantham, was sufficiently intentional or reckless, extreme and outrageous, and emotionally distressing to support a claim for the tort of outrage under Alabama law.
2. Whether the trial court's Rule 54(b) certification made final and appealable its rulings precluding recovery of damages for lost income and fear of contracting a communicable disease.

Disposition

other