[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Plaintiff must suffer physical injury (impact);
2. Plaintiff’s physical injury must be caused by the psychological trauma;
3. Plaintiff must be involved in some way in the event causing the injury to another; and
4. Plaintiff must have a close personal relationship to directly injured person.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. Plaintiff must suffer physical injury (impact);
2. Plaintiff’s physical injury must be caused by the psychological trauma;
3. Plaintiff must be involved in some way in the event causing the injury to another; and
4. Plaintiff must have a close personal relationship to directly injured person.

The impact rule is not applicable when the plaintiff suffers discriminate physical injury caused by emotional distress arising from plaintiff’s witnessing the death or injury of a loved one. Champion v. Grey, 478 So. 2d 17, 18-20 (Fla. 1985). The impact rule is also not applicable in wrongful birth actions. Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So. 2d 415, 422-423 (Fla. 1992). The impact rule does not apply when a laboratory or other health care provider is negligent in failing to keep confidential the results of an HIV test. Fla. Dep’t of Corrections v. Abril, 969 So. 2d 201, 208 (Fla. 2007). Nor is physical impact required when the wrongful act was perpetrated with malice. Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So. 2d 188, 189 (Fla. 1950). Temporal proximity, as opposed to being an absolute inflexible requirement, should be utilized simply as a relevant factor to be considered in a factfinder’s determination of whether a person has sustained a physical injury as a result of a psychic trauma. Zell v. Meek, 665 So. 2d 1048, 1053-1055 (Fla. 1995).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Fla. Dep’t of Corrs. v. Abril, 969 So. 2d 201, 206 (Fla. 2007); Zell v. Meek, 665 So.2d 1048, 1054 (Fla. 1995).


First District: Elliot v. Elliot, 58 So. 3d 878, 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).


Second District: St. Joseph’s Hosp. v. Cowart, 891 So.2d 1039, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).


Third District: LeGrande v. Emmanuel, 889 So.2d 991, 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).


Fourth District: D.E.W. v. Krouse, 41 So. 3d 320, 321 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2010) (Generally, the impact rule requires that ‘”before a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligence of another, the emotional distress suffered must flow from physical injuries the plaintiff sustained in an impact.”‘).


Fifth District: Kendron v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, LLC, 230 So.3d 636, 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Heinen v. Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD., 806 Fed.Appx. 847 (11th Cir. 2020); Bodine v. Fed. Kemper Life Assurance Co., 912 F.2d 1373, 1376 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991).


Southern District:  Selinger v. Kimera Labs, Inc., 2022 WL 34444, *5 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2022); Merino v. Ethicon Inc., 536 F.Supp.3d 1271, 1278 (S.D. Fla. 2021); Salinero v. Johnson & Johnson, 400 F.Supp. 3d 1334, 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2019). 


Middle District: Lewis v. Arnold, No. 5:24-CV-13-MMH-PRL, 2024 WL 5455548, at *11 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2024); Newcome v. Hernando County Sheriff’s Office, 2022 WL 309429, *6 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2022); Doss v. Hillsborough Cty., No. 8:19-cv-2287-T-60TGW, 2019 WL 5865302, at *2 (M.D. Fla. October 21, 2019); Reynolds v. City of Daytona Beach, No: 6:18-cv-1921-Orl-28LRH, 2019 WL 2412433, at *12 (M.D. Fla May 22, 2019).


Northern District: Lincoln v. Fla. Gas Transmission Co., No. 4:13–cv–74–MW/CAS, 2014 WL 3057113, at *8 (N.D. Fla. July 7, 2014).

REFERENCES

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 313 (1965)

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(o), (p), Fla. Stat. (four years); see Ross v. Twenty-Four Collection, 617 So. 2d 428, 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

(3) The impact rule dictates that a plaintiff cannot assert a claim for emotional distress absent a showing that the emotional distress flowed from injuries sustained in a physical impact. Fla. Dep’t of Corrs. v. Abril, 969 So. 2d 201, 206 (Fla. 2007); R.J. v. Humana, Inc., 652 So. 2d 360, 363 (Fla. 1995); but see Hagan v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 804 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 2001)(allowing claim for emotional distress based on ingestion of contaminated food or beverage absent physical impact).

(4) The assertion of legal rights in a legally permissible manner constitutes a privilege that precludes an action based on reckless or even outrageous conduct. See Canto v. J.B. Ivey and Co., 595 So. 2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

(5) A successful defense of privilege to a defamation claim will also preclude a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress when the latter is premised on an allegedly defamatory publication. See Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So. 2d 65, 70 (Fla. 1992).

(6) Gracey v. Eaker, 837 So. 2d 348, 355 (Fla. 2002).

(7) To recover damages for emotional distress resulting from negligent hiring, supervision or retention, a plaintiff must show that the suffered emotional stress flowed from injuries sustained in an impact. Perez v. Pavex Corp., 2002 WL 31500404, at *3 (M.D. Fla. 2002).

[/MM_Access_Decision]