## Facts

- Sylvia Byrd sued Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc., and two employees, Joyce Todd (store manager) and Phyllis Purcell, as next friend of Byrd’s nine-year-old daughter, Tynesha.
- Byrd and Tynesha were shopping at a Goodwill store when Tynesha needed to use a restroom; Goodwill’s restroom was out of service.
- Byrd sent Tynesha next door to Fred’s solely to use Fred’s restroom; Tynesha testified they did not plan to shop at Fred’s.
- When Tynesha entered the restroom, she smelled feces and saw feces on the wall and toilet seat, plus a pair of bloody underwear and an empty underwear package in the trash.
- Purcell, working near the restroom, noticed a strong odor, saw Tynesha exit the restroom, checked the restroom, and suspected Tynesha had discarded her own underwear and stolen new underwear from the store.
- Purcell found Tynesha outside the store and brought her back to Todd.
- Todd and Purcell spoke kindly to Tynesha but took her back into the restroom, accused her of stealing, showed her the soiled underwear, and lifted her shirt to inspect the brand of underwear she was wearing.
- Tynesha was not wearing the same brand as the discarded underwear package; she denied making the mess or stealing.
- Todd told Tynesha to leave the store; Tynesha left crying.
- Tynesha returned with Byrd; Byrd yelled, cursed, and threw merchandise.
- After the incident, Tynesha fainted and cried; she later reported nightmares and fear of going into stores alone.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court denied summary judgment as to at least the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (and denied summary judgment on other claims as well).
- Defendants took an interlocutory appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals from the denial of summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying summary judgment on Byrd’s claim based on premises-duty/invitee status where Tynesha entered Fred’s only to use the restroom and not to shop.
2. Whether genuine issues of material fact required denial of summary judgment on the intentional tort claims arising from the employees’ treatment of a nine-year-old child, including intentional infliction of emotional distress.
3. Whether the evidence created a jury question on false imprisonment/false arrest based on the child being brought back into the store and questioned.
4. Whether the underwear inspection and related conduct created a jury question on invasion of privacy.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed in part and reversed in part the order denying summary judgment.
- The court reversed the denial of summary judgment on the claim premised on invitee status (a negligence/premises-duty theory), holding Tynesha was not an invitee as a matter of law because she entered solely to use the restroom, not for a purpose connected to Fred’s business.
- The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the intentional tort claims, holding the record presented jury questions on intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment/false arrest, and invasion of privacy.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the partial affirmance and partial reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; on appeal, evidence and reasonable inferences are viewed in favor of the nonmovant.
- A premises-duty claim depends on the entrant’s legal status; a person who enters a store solely to use a restroom, without intending to shop or otherwise confer a business benefit, may be a licensee rather than an invitee, limiting the duty owed and defeating an invitee-based theory as a matter of law.
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires evidence from which a jury could find extreme and outrageous conduct and severe emotional distress; when the conduct is directed at a minor, context matters in evaluating outrageousness and the severity of the emotional effect.
- False imprisonment may be shown by an unlawful detention or restraint of personal liberty, even without physical force, if the circumstances would allow a jury to find the person was not free to leave or felt compelled to comply.
- Invasion of privacy can be supported by evidence of a wrongful intrusion into private matters; compelling or pressuring a child to expose intimate clothing for inspection may support a claim when a jury could find the intrusion was unjustified or coercive.
- Appellate briefing must present arguments within the brief itself; incorporation by reference of trial-court briefing is disfavored and may be disregarded.

## Conclusion

Todd v. Byrd held that a nine-year-old who entered a retail store solely to use its restroom was not an invitee, requiring reversal of the trial court’s refusal to grant summary judgment on an invitee-based premises-duty theory, but that a jury could reasonably find liability on intentional tort theories where employees accused the child of theft, confronted her in a filthy restroom, and inspected her underwear, so summary judgment was properly denied on claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment/false arrest, and invasion of privacy.


Todd v. Byrd, 640 S.E.2d 652 (2006)