Hollomon v. Keadle
Arkansas Supreme Court
931 S.W.2d 413 (1996)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Mary Hollomon (plaintiff) was employed by Dr. W. R. Keadle (defendant) for a little over two years. Hollomon left voluntarily, claiming she resigned because of Keadle’s cursing. On her second day, Hollomon understood Keadle to be a grouch who constantly cursed and yelled. Over the course of Hollomon’s employment, Keadle repeatedly cursed at and insulted Hollomon. According to Hollomon, she remained with Keadle’s office because she was a poor, single parent. Hollomon alleged that Keadle routinely made degrading remarks about women and aimed profanity at Hollomon in front of patients and coworkers. Hollomon also alleged that Keadle made veiled threats of physical harm. Hollomon claimed that Keadle’s conduct caused her a host of health problems, both physical and mental, including stomach pain and anxiety attacks. She reported her issues with Keadle to a counselor but did not seek counseling services. Keadle and another doctor gave Hollomon medication for her stomach problems, but there was no indication that Keadle knew the stomach problems were related to his use of profanity. Hollomon filed an action for the tort of outrage (also known as intentional infliction of emotional distress) in the trial court. The trial court dismissed Hollomon’s claim because the allegations were insufficient to support a claim for the tort of outrage. Hollomon appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roaf, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.