Legal History/Procedure: The tribunal for the Ellison v. Burger King Corp. case was presiding judge, Blackburn of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. The trial court granted summary judgement in favor of defendants Burger King, SRH (Southern Restaurant Hospitality), Carl Payton (SRH president), and the manager. Ellison appealed the judgement of the trial court to the Court of Appeals contending that material issues of fact impeded summary judgment. Operative Facts: Sharon Ellison, went to a Burger king to put in her order and wanted to know why no one was serving her. She claims the manager on duty put her hands around her neck and eventually started shaking her head. The plaintiff filed a complaint against Burger King, SRH, Carl Payton, and the manager for alleged violent behavior by a manager at the restaurant. Ellison claims that it was emotionally distressing and as a result is seeking damages for battery and intentional …show more content…
Holding: Yes. As a result, the claim of intentional infliction granted summary judgment, however the claim of battery was not granted summary judgement. Disposition: The judgment of the court was affirmed, reversed, and remanded in various parts. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment to be correct. The court concluded that summary judgement to the manager was not supportive enough to triumph the matter of law after Ellison revealed the evidence to show the allegation of battery. The summary judgment in the trial court for the manager was reversed and remanded. The court ruled that the decision the trial court made regarding the claim Ellison made about intentional infliction of emotional distress was valid and