Kim Brown v. Mapco Express, Inc.
393 S.W.3d 696
Tenn. Ct. App.2012Background
- Brown sued Mapco Express for a verbal incident at a Memphis gas station alleging defamation, false light, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring/supervision/retention, and sought $1.5 billion total.
- Security video of the incident exists; Brown asked for different denominations, sought a refund, and claimed Mapco staff made insulting and threatening remarks.
- The trial court granted Mapco summary judgment on several claims and later on all remaining claims after discovery; Brown had not deposed Mapco witnesses or identified experts by the initial deadline.
- Brown filed two motions to amend to add TCPA consumer-protection claims, which the trial court denied; Brown contends amendment was timely due to surveillance video.
- On appeal, the court affirms the trial court’s denial of the TCPA amendment and the grant of summary judgment on all remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| TCPA amendment denials rational? | Brown argues the TCPA amendment should have been allowed. | Mapco argues denial was within discretionary authority and amendment would be futile. | Affirmed the denial of the TCPA amendment. |
| Negligent hiring/supervision/retention viability | Brown contends Mapco knew or should have known Tyler's unfitness. | Mapco had no knowledge of unfitness; facts insufficient. | affirmed summary judgment for Mapco on negligent hiring/supervision/retention. |
| IIED viability | Brown claims extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe distress. | Conduct deemed mere insults, not extreme or outrageous. | affirmed summary judgment for Mapco on IIED. |
| NIED viability | Brown asserts serious emotional injury from the incident. | Conduct not extreme/outrageous and injury not sufficiently severe. | affirmed summary judgment for Mapco on NIED. |
| False light viability | Brown claims staff created false light in presence of customers. | Publicity requirement not met; statements not highly offensive or widely publicized. | affirmed summary judgment for Mapco on false light. |
| Defamation (slander) viability | Statements alleged defamatory; publication to customers. | Statements not false or defamatory; at most mere insults. | affirmed summary judgment for Mapco on defamation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Catholic Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, 306 S.W.3d 712 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (negligence-based employer liability for employee conduct (negligent hiring/supervision/retention context))
- Bain v. Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618 (Tenn. 1998) (Restatement-based standard for outrageous conduct in IIED cases)
- Rogers v. Louisville Gas Co., 367 S.W.3d 196 (Tenn. 2012) (elements of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress; serious emotional injury required)
- West v. Med. Gen. Convergence, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 640 (Tenn. 2001) (false light severity and publicity requirements; publication to a small group may be insufficient)
- Stones River Motors, Inc. v. Mid-South Pub. Co., 651 S.W.2d 713 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983) (defamation standards; distinction between defamatory meaning and insult)