In the case Al-Aroud v. McCoy, 2021-Ohio-3832, the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision granting judgment in favor of the plaintiffs where the defendant’s acts were intentional and malicious.
Here, the plaintiffs brought an action against the defendant alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress after the defendant called a friend that was also employed at the same medical center as the plaintiffs and informed the friend that the plaintiffs were stealing narcotics from their employer. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant’s statements were defamatory in nature and constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs and the defendant appealed the decision.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find in favor of the plaintiffs regarding the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because the defendant’s conduct was so “extreme and outrageous” that it caused emotional injury to the plaintiffs. The Court further reasoned that the statements made by the defendant constituted defamation because the statements were made with actual malice and as such, punitive damages were proper.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.