Dockins v. Ingles Markets, Inc., 23523
| Decision Date | 01 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 23523,23523 |
| Citation | 411 S.E.2d 437,306 S.C. 287 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Rhonda B. DOCKINS, Appellant, v. INGLES MARKETS, INC., Respondent. . Heard |
Hal J. Warlick, Easley, for appellant.
Phillip E. Reeves, Greenville, for respondent.
The sole issue presented in this case is whether an employee's claim of slander is barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. We find that the harm flowing from an act of slander is not a "personal injury" within the Workers' Compensation Act. Therefore, this claim is not within the ambit of the Act and the exclusivity provisions are not applicable.
The appellant, Dockins, was employed by respondent, Ingles Market. She brought this action in the Court of Common Pleas alleging slander per se. According to Dockins' complaint, appellant's manager, in front of other employees and customers, made statements implying Dockins was having an adulterous affair with another employee and was carrying his child. Some statements were made over the store's public address system. Ingles filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The lower court granted the motion holding the claim was within the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. We disagree.
The Workers' Compensation Act bars all actions against employers when a personal injury to an employee comes within the Act. Doe v. South Carolina State Hospital, 285 S.C. 183, 328 S.E.2d 652 (Ct.App.1985). See S.C.Code Ann. §§ 42-1-540 and 42-5-10 (1985). The question presented here is whether the injury in a slander action is a personal injury under the Act. The Workers' Compensation Act encompasses physical and mental injuries arising out of employment. The gravamen of a defamation action, however, is injury to the reputation. An injury to reputation affects a proprietary interest and is not a personal injury. Battista v. Chrysler Corp., 454 A.2d 286 (Del.Super.1982). We hold injury to one's reputation is not the type of injury envisioned by the Workers' Compensation Act, and it is, therefore, inapplicable.
Other jurisdictions have recognized that not all harms occasioned by the employment relationship qualify as compensable injuries under Workers' Compensation Acts. Such harms include injuries to reputation resulting from libel, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, invasion of privacy and false arrest. Foley v. Polaroid Corp., 381 Mass. 545, 413 N.E.2d 711 (1980). See generally, Annotation, Workmen's Compensation Provision as Precluding Employee's Action Against Employer for Fraud, False Imprisonment, Defamation, or the Like, 46 ALR3d 1279 (1972).
Dockins alleges mental injuries as an element of her damages. Ingles argues that since these injuries are compensable under the Act, it is her exclusive remedy. Powell v. Vulcan Materials Company, 299 S.C. 325, 384 S.E.2d 725 (1989). We disagree. This issue was also presented in Foley v. Polaroid Corp., supra. In Foley, the allegations of physical and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. National Bank of Detroit
...as amended, it is not the kind of harm for which workers' compensation benefits are payable. See n. 6.15 In Dockins v. Ingles Markets, Inc., 306 S.C. 287, 411 S.E.2d 437 (1991), the South Carolina Supreme Court followed Foley I as clarified in Foley II and held that a worker's cause of acti......
-
Nassa v. Hook-SupeRx, Inc.
...that defamation does not result in a personal injury at all, but instead affects a "proprietaryinterest." Dockins v. Ingles Markets, Inc., 411 S.E. 2d 437, 438 (S.C. 1991) (citing Battista v. Chrysler Corp., 454 A.2d 286 But however one defines defamation or its consequences, the scope of t......
-
Sabb v. South Carolina State University
...to hear Sabb's claims, they are overruled: Woodard v. Westvaco Corp., 319 S.C. 240, 460 S.E.2d 392 (1995); Dockins v. Ingles Markets, Inc., 306 S.C. 287, 411 S.E.2d 437 (1991); McSwain v. Shei, 304 S.C. 25, 402 S.E.2d 890 (1991); Bridges v. Wyandotte Worsted Co., 243 S.C. 1, 132 S.E.2d 18 3......
-
Fotia v. Palmetto Behavioral Health
...which the Act provides no remedy. See, e.g., Peay v. U.S. Silica Co., 313 S.C. 91, 437 S.E.2d 64, 65 (1993); Dockins v. Ingles Markets, Inc., 306 S.C. 287, 411 S.E.2d 437 (1991). 9. At no point in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does he suggest that he suffered emotional distress, or any inju......