The Term In Review–Torts
Two significant cases of interest in the area of torts were presented during this term.
The first, Mays v. Marshall University, No. 14-0788, examined a woman’s claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of confidentiality, invasion of privacy, and negligence, following an inadvertent disclosure of photographs taken in preparation for a reconstructive surgery of her breasts. The circuit court had granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, Ms. Mays, appealed. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals declined to expand the grounds on which a plaintiff can recover for claims of emotional distress, breach of confidentiality, or invasion of privacy. Claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress will continue to be examined by the “ordinarily sensitive person” standard, rather than a subjective standard which would take into account the emotional and mental status of each individual plaintiff. Only in limited circumstances, as set forth in an older case, Tabata v. Charleston Area Med. Cntr., 233 W. Va. 512, 759 S.E.2d 459 (2014), will a plaintiff be permitted to bring a claim for invasion of privacy for wrongful disclosure of healthcare information, and breach of confidentiality will remain the primary recourse for a patient whose healthcare information has been disclosed.
Another case presenting interesting questions of tort law was Maston v. Wagner, No. 14-1113. In that case, the Plaintiff, Mr. Wagner, brought claims against a sheriff and a state trooper, after all criminal charges brought against him in connection with the incident were dismissed without prejudice. The complaint filed by Mr. Wagner alleged that the officers, acting within the scope of their employment as law enforcement agents, worked in concert to assault Mr. Wagner and cause him both physical and emotional injuries and distress, and that the officers’ employers had inappropriately hired, trained, supervised, and disciplined them. The complaint also alleged that the officers’ actions toward Mr. Wagner violated his rights under the West Virginia Constitution. The circuit court denied the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which argued that the Defendants were entitled to the qualified immunity generally afforded to government agencies, officials, and employees for discretionary acts done in the course of their official duties, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals conducted a two-step inquiry, first asking whether the officers could be found to have violated Mr. Wagner’s constitutional rights, and then asking whether Mr. Wagner’s constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the arrest. The Supreme Court found that, under the totality of the circumstances, the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied; that the Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because a state agency may be vicariously liable for the officers’ wrongful acts committed within the scope of employment; and that issues of fact existed as to whether the deliberate or reckless policies and acts of the Defendants caused Mr. Wagner’s constitutional rights to be violated.
Each of these cases presented distinctive factual situations, to which the Court applied long-standing principles of tort law. While the Court declined to expand the grounds on which plaintiffs may recover for alleged violations in one context involving healthcare and privacy, the Court made clear that constitutional rights continue to merit the highest protections. We look forward to seeing how these issues, and others, are examined in the coming term.
