1. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. TRONCALLI v. JONES 237 Ga.App. 10, 514 S.E.2d 478 (1999) Case Brief

2. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. TRONCALLI v. JONES PURPOSE: A tort may be created by rights and duties established by a criminal statute.

3. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. TRONCALLI v. JONES CAUSE OF ACTION: Stalking (plus four other torts): 1. Intentional infliction of emotional distress; 2. Negligent infliction of emotional distress; 3. Invasion of privacy; 4. Assault and battery.

4. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. TRONCALLI v. JONES FACTS: The incidents began when Jones and Troncalli were at a party at a mutual friend’s home. Troncalli inappropriately “brushed up” against Jones’ breasts on two separate occasions during the night. This act appeared to be intentional and resulted in Jones leaving the party. Troncalli followed her closely despite her reckless driving. Jones eventually spotted police and asked for assistance. Troncalli gave Jones a threatening gesture from his car but was then asked to leave by the police. Jones did not file a report until a week later, a week during which Troncalli harassed her in public and came by her home. Jones “developed shingles, experienced nausea and vomiting, became frightened and depressed, and sought psychological counseling.”

5. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. TRONCALLI v. JONES ISSUE: Whether the trial court was in error in holding that a tort of stalking was created when the legislature created a criminal statute on stalking.

6. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. TRONCALLI v. JONES HOLDING: Yes, the violation of a penal statute does not automatically give rise to a civil cause of action on the part of one who is injured thereby.

7. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. TRONCALLI v. JONES REASONING: Although the Georgia statute establishes the public policy of the state, nothing in its provisions creates a private cause of action in tort in favor of the victim. As a result, Troncalli’s motion for a directed verdict on the claim of stalking should have been granted. Jones’ argument that the court’s charge on stalking simply set forth a duty does not hold up because she made stalking one of the counts of the complaint, which also made the general verdict inseparable as far as the other counts were concerned.