However, Plaintiffs may not maintain a separate or additional cause of action under Ala.Code §§ 21-7-3 through 21-7-5 or § 3-1-7. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be GRANTED as to the Plaintiffs’ state law claims for disability discrimination. B. Counts III, IV, and VI: Negligence and Wantonness Claims Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, wantonness, and negligent failure to train and supervise fail because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated actionable damages. (MotSumm. J., 5-6.) Plaintiffs concede that damages are a required element of these claims, but argue that the embarrassment and emotional distress they suffered are sufficient. (Resp. Opp’n Summ. J., , 1204 (Ala.1999) (same); Daniels v. E. Ala. Paving, Inc., 740 So.2d 1033, 1049 (<HOLDING>). In opposition to application of the zone of
holding that appellants had no standing to challenge search of car because they had no ownership or possessory rights of any kind in the car holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search holding that plaintiffs were not in the zone of danger and could not recover for emotional distress because they were at not home when their house caught on fire holding that plaintiffs who were in the car during car accident could recover for emotional damages because they were within zone of danger holding plaintiff car owners averment in affidavit that certain actions by defendant mechanic caused damage to plaintiffs car were conclusory because she provided no factual support