Case Law Holt v. Rickman

Holt v. Rickman

Document Cited Authorities (10) Cited in Related

1

HOLT
v.
RICKMAN et al.

No. A23A0612

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Third Division

June 7, 2023


DOYLE, P. J., GOBEIL, J., and SENIOR APPELLATE JUDGE PHIPPS

PHIPPS, SENIOR APPELLATE JUDGE

Brenazia Holt brought negligence claims against an apartment complex's owners and manager, seeking damages for emotional distress after she awakened to discover a maintenance worker in her bed. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that Georgia's impact rule barred Holt's negligence claims because she experienced no physical injuries as a result of the incident. Holt appeals, but for reasons that follow, we affirm.

2

Viewed favorably to Holt,[1] the record shows that in December 2019, she was staying at her aunt's apartment in Bibb County. The apartment complex was owned by the Stephen and Selyne Rickman Family Trust and operated by Heritage Realty, a limited liability company owned by Stephen Rickman. Joshua Mathews performed maintenance for Heritage and had a master key to the apartments in the complex.

One morning while Holt was sleeping alone in a bedroom, she awakened and found Mathews lying on top of the covers on the bed. Holt pulled the covers up over her head, but Mathews "snatched" them down to the top of her chest, saying he wanted to "see what [she] look[ed] like under there." Holt told Mathews to "get the f--- out" and pretended to reach for a weapon, at which point Mathews fled. According to Holt, Mathews touched the top of her head while pulling the covers down, but did not otherwise touch her skin and did not see her breasts. Holt testified that she suffered no physical injuries, sought no medical treatment, and missed no work as a result of the incident. However, she occasionally dreams about it and wakes up "thinking somebody [is] in [her] bed."

3

Holt recognized Mathews because he had performed work in the apartment the day before the incident. Holt told her aunt what had happened, and her aunt spoke with Rickman, who promised to "handle the situation." Rickman testified that he hired Mathews in 2016 despite a background check showing that Mathews had two pending child molestation charges. According to Rickman, Mathews explained that he was in the middle of a contentious divorce and that his wife had accused him of molesting one of their children. In 2017, Mathews informed Rickman that he had pled guilty to lesser charges of sexual battery against a child under the age of 16. Rickman continued to employ Mathews as a maintenance worker with access to a master key. After learning about the incident involving Holt, Rickman spoke to her, as well as Mathews, and concluded that there was no proof of Holt's allegations. Approximately one week later, Mathews voluntary resigned his employment.

Holt sued Stephen and Seleyne Rickman and Heritage, asserting claims for premises liability and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision against all three defendants. Holt sought damages for "severe emotional distress" and other unspecified injuries.[2] Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for

4

summary judgment. The defendants argued that Holt's negligence claims were barred by Georgia's impact rule because she suffered no physical injury as a result of the incident. The trial court granted the defendants' motion, agreeing that they were entitled to summary judgment because Holt "failed to present evidence of a physical injury caused by the physical impact of Mr. Mathews[.]"[3] Holt appeals.

Georgia's "impact rule" provides that "[i]n a claim concerning negligent conduct, a recovery for emotional distress is allowed only where there is some impact on the plaintiff, and that impact must be a physical injury." Ryckeley v. Callaway, 261 Ga. 828, 828 (412 S.E.2d 826) (1992). To satisfy the rule, a plaintiff must show that she (1) suffered a physical impact that (2) resulted in a physical injury which (3) caused her mental suffering or emotional distress. Lee v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 272 Ga. 583, 586 (I) (533 S.E.2d 82) (2000). A plaintiff's failure to...

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex