The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the Circuit Court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants—Delta Airlines, Comair, Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Robert Franklin, and Winston McCarty—ruling that their conduct did not constitute outrageous conduct as a matter of law. The plaintiffs, Jack and Ruth Parnell, alleged that the defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress by refusing them boarding on a flight to Oregon. The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment standards, noting that the moving party must demonstrate there are no genuine issues of material fact entitling them to judgment as a matter of law. It emphasized that the nonmoving party must provide specific facts to counter the motion, rather than relying on pleadings. The court found no material factual disputes and adopted the trial court's opinion and judgment, concluding that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment.
In a motion for summary judgment, the facts must be viewed favorably towards the Plaintiffs. The Parnells traveled from Chattanooga to Oregon using senior discount coupons purchased by Mr. Parnell with a VISA card in 1999. He had also bought an airline ticket for the same amount but canceled it, mistakenly disputing the charge for the coupons with VISA. On May 27, 2000, their flight to Atlanta was canceled, leading to issues with Delta regarding the issuance of new tickets. Delta's system indicated that new tickets couldn’t be issued until payment for the senior coupons was confirmed, resulting in a confrontation between Mr. Parnell and a gate agent, during which a scratch occurred on the agent's hand. Following this, the gate agent's supervisor instructed Mr. Parnell to leave and threatened criminal charges. Although the Parnells eventually reached Oregon, they remain banned from flying Delta, at least regarding the use of Frequent Flier points.
Regarding the claim of outrageous conduct under Tennessee law, three elements must be established: (1) the conduct must be intentional and reckless; (2) it must be so outrageous that it is intolerable in civilized society; and (3) it must cause serious mental injury. The Court found Delta's conduct, while reprehensible, did not meet the high threshold for outrageous conduct, as established in Bain v. Wells. The Court noted that the Parnells were not adequately informed about issues with their tickets, but this did not amount to outrageous conduct. Therefore, it did not need to address the evidence required for emotional distress claims. Plaintiffs argued that the Trial Court's description of Delta's actions as "totally reprehensible" should suffice for establishing outrageous conduct; however, the Court indicated that conduct may be excusable if provoked by stress or annoyance.
In Goldfarb v. Baker, 547 S.W.2d 567 (Tenn. 1977), the court affirmed that airlines possess broad discretion in boarding decisions, as supported by federal law. Claims regarding wrongful exclusion from flights are preempted by the Air Transportation Security Act of 1974. Additionally, creditors are not liable for reasonable debt collection efforts, even if conducted rudely. The plaintiffs contended they were not explicitly informed they could not board without payment; however, plaintiff Parnell acknowledged in his deposition that he was informed by a Delta agent about a "do not board" notation due to an outstanding charge of $246. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants was upheld, with costs of the appeal assigned to the plaintiffs, Jack and Ruth Parnell.
