Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida · 1958 · Torts

TortsIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressInsulting Languageemotional distressinsult alonesevere emotional distressobjective standardordinary sensibilities

Facts

Julia Slocum was a customer in Food Fair's store when she asked an employee the price of an item he was marking. According to the complaint, the employee replied, "If you want to know the price, you'll have to find out the best way you can * * * you stink to me." She alleged that this language was used maliciously or with gross recklessness, or with intent to inflict great mental and emotional disturbance. She claimed mental suffering and emotional distress, followed by a heart attack and aggravation of pre-existing heart disease.

Issue

Does a complaint state a cause of action where a store customer alleges that a store employee's insulting language intentionally caused emotional distress and resulting physical symptoms? More specifically, can this conduct constitute an actionable invasion of a legally protected right on the facts alleged?

Rule

Even assuming a cause of action may exist for intentionally causing severe emotional distress, liability does not arise from mere vulgar or insulting language unless the conduct, judged objectively and from common acceptation, is calculated to cause severe emotional distress to a person of ordinary sensibilities. Allegations that words were spoken maliciously or recklessly do not suffice without allegations showing the words were intended to have real meaning or serious effect. The special-rule cases involving carriers, hotels, theaters, and similar relationships do not extend to ordinary store-customer relationships on these facts.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a home-goods store in Tampa, Nina Patel asked clerk Owen Kirby whether a lamp was on sale. In front of other shoppers, Owen smirked and said, "Figure it out yourself, you disgusting slob," and Nina later alleged panic, sleeplessness, and chest pain.

If Nina sues the store for intentional infliction of emotional distress based solely on this statement, what is the strongest argument for dismissal under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that even assuming a tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists, mere abusive or vulgar language in an ordinary store-customer relationship is not actionable unless, judged objectively and from common acceptation, it is calculated to cause severe emotional distress to a person of ordinary sensibilities. Physical symptoms do not cure the absence of an actionable invasion of a legally protected right.