A woman who was left at a bus stop in the cold by a bus driver did not state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In Williams v. Holt, No. M2024-01188-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 1, 2025), the plaintiff was waiting at a bus stop on a November morning without a coat. When the next bus for that station pulled up, it initially pulled into a different bay because the correct bay was blocked. After seeing the plaintiff, the driver pulled to the correct bay, opened the doors, and said, “Come on, now.” The plaintiff asked the driver to lower to the steps for her, at which point the driver closed the doors and left plaintiff. The plaintiff expressed her concerns at the customer service desk, where a worker said she would file a complaint for the plaintiff. The plaintiff boarded the next bus twenty-six minutes after the previous bus left the plaintiff. The plaintiff later learned that the worker never filed a complaint.
The plaintiff filed this case pro se, asserting a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) against the bus driver and customer service representative who failed to file a complaint. She also alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) against the Metropolitan Transit Authority, who she alleged employed the driver and worker. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, which was affirmed on appeal.
“A plaintiff seeking damages for IIED must meet an ‘exacting standard.’” (internal citation omitted). “Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” (internal citation and quotation omitted). The trial court ruled, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that the behavior alleged by the plaintiff did not meet that standard.
The Court of Appeals explained:
We have no doubt that Plaintiff was upset when Mr. Holt closed the doors and left her at the Music City Center in the cold. However, we cannot hold that Mr. Holt’s conduct was so beyond the bounds of decency to warrant the label of “atrocious” or “outrageous” behavior. Ms. Keys’s false assurance that she would file a complaint also does not rise to the level of outrageous conduct. At worst, Plaintiff experienced an annoyance as a result of poor customer service that caused her to wait approximately 26 minutes. We hold as a matter of law that Plaintiff’s evidence at the summary judgment stage was insufficient to establish a claim of IIED against Mr. Holt and Ms. Keys.
Regarding the NIED claim, the Court found that the driver and worker were not employed by the entity that the plaintiff named in her complaint. Because the entity named was not the correct employer, it did not owe a duty to the plaintiff.
Summary judgment on all counts was affirmed.
This opinion was released one month after oral arguments in this case.