Bulmer v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.

• Citation: 317 S.E.2d 893,170 Ga.App. 659
• Decision Date: 06 April 1984
• Docket Number: No. 67601,67601
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
• Parties: BULMER v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

Page 893

317 S.E.2d 893

170 Ga.App. 659

BULMER v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

No. 67601.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

April 6, 1984.

J. Robert Joiner, Albany, for appellant.

Lawrence E. Gill, Vincent L. Sgrosso, Martin T. Walsh, Atlanta, for appellee.

QUILLIAN, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant Bulmer was an employee of South Central Bell in Louisiana and, apparently motivated by her husband's transfer to Atlanta in his employment, communicated with defendant-appellee Southern Bell regarding an intercompany transfer to a position with appellee in Atlanta. Apparently believing that she would be employed by appellee in Atlanta at a certain position, appellant took leave from her employment in Louisiana, sold her house there and moved to Atlanta. When she arrived, she was not employed by appellee at the position and salary she had anticipated, but at a lesser and lower salaried position at a later date.

Appellant instituted this action alleging in count 1 breach of contract of employment, and in counts 2, 3 and 4 breach of a specific duty "flowing from relations between the parties created by the contract described above ... to refrain from a course of conduct which would reasonably induce plaintiff to believe she had employment in Atlanta ... so as to cause plaintiff to resign her job in Louisiana and move to Atlanta," resulting in "wounded feelings;" negligent breach of a duty "to handle her transfer (or attempted transfer) properly and prudently after having agreed to undertake the handling of the transfer (or attempted transfer);" and "aggravating circumstances" for which punitive damages were demanded.

Appellee's motions to dismiss counts 2, 3 and 4, the allegations of tortious conduct, for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted, were granted by the trial court. Eleven months later, after discovery, appellee was granted summary judgment on count 1, the alleged breach of contract, from which order this appeal is taken. In this court, appellant concedes that the contract alleged in count 1 is unenforceable and does not contest the validity of the grant of summary judgment thereon, only the dismissal of the three counts in tort. Held:

As the appeal enumerates as error dismissal of the tort counts for failing to state a cause of action, we need consider only the allegations of appellant's complaint.

Although appellant contends that the duty owed to her by appellee is a common law duty and exists independently of any contract, she ambiguously alleges breaches of specific duties "flowing from relations between parties created by the contract described above," and an agreement "to undertake the handling of the transfer (or attempted transfer)."

Absent a special relationship, no action for breach of a duty arising from a contract exists independent of the contract. "There are certain classes of contracts that create a relation from which the law implies duties a breach of which will constitute a tort, and 'in such cases an injured party may sue either for breach of the contract, or in tort' for breach of the implied duty. This rule applies in certain contractual relations between principal and agent, bailor...