Champion v. Gray
478 So.2d 17 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Florida abrogates the 'impact rule' to a limited extent, establishing a direct and distinct cause of action for significant discernible physical injuries, including death, that result from severe psychic trauma caused by a defendant's negligence to a closely related person, when the psychically injured individual was directly involved in the accident's occurrence or immediate aftermath.
Facts:
- A drunken driver, Roy Lee Gray, Jr., ran his car off the road.
- The car struck and killed Karen Champion.
- Karen's mother, Joyce Champion, heard the impact of the accident.
- Joyce Champion immediately came to the accident scene.
- Joyce Champion saw her daughter Karen's body.
- Joyce Champion was so overcome with shock and grief that she collapsed and died on the spot.
- Walton Champion is the personal representative of his wife's (Joyce Champion's) estate.
Procedural Posture:
- Walton Champion, as personal representative of Joyce Champion's estate, filed a lawsuit seeking damages for Joyce Champion's death against Roy Lee Gray, Jr., et al. (the driver and other respondents).
- The trial court dismissed the complaint, relying on existing case law that required a physical impact for emotional distress claims.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal, upholding the established 'impact rule'.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal then certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida, questioning the continued validity of the impact rule.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Florida's 'impact rule' preclude recovery for significant discernible physical consequences, including death, resulting from severe mental or emotional stress caused by a defendant's negligence to a closely related person, in the absence of physical impact upon the plaintiff?
Opinions:
Majority - McDonald, Justice
No, Florida's 'impact rule' does not preclude recovery for such injuries; the court modifies its previous holdings to recognize a limited cause of action in these circumstances. The court concludes that the harm of death or significant discernible physical injury caused by psychological trauma from a negligent injury to a close family member within the sensory perception of the psychically injured person is too great to require direct physical contact. While acknowledging the traditional rules of duty and foreseeability and the potential for fraudulent claims, the court emphasizes that recovery requires a causally connected, clearly discernible physical impairment that accompanies or occurs within a short time of the psychic injury, explicitly rejecting claims for purely subjective psychic trauma alone, as affirmed in Brown v. Cadillac Motor Car Division. The court distinguishes 'fright' cases from 'bystander' emotional distress cases, drawing on Dillon v. Legg's foreseeability test, which considers the plaintiff's proximity to the accident, direct sensory observation (or immediate aftermath), and close relationship to the victim. Public policy is held to require some outward limitations on a pure foreseeability rule for these 'unusual and nontraditional' claims. On rehearing, the court clarified that this cause of action is a direct and distinct claim, not derivative, arising from a separate and distinct duty owed to such foreseeable persons who suffer a separate and distinct physical injury.
Concurring specially - Adkins, Justice
Justice Adkins concurred in the result, stating he would further allow recovery when the plaintiff first sees the victim in the hospital, and for plaintiffs with a close personal relationship to the victim, regardless of blood or marriage ties, provided physical injury from mental distress is foreseeable under these circumstances.
Concurring specially - Alderman, Justice
Justice Alderman agreed that a person suffering significant discernible physical injury from psychic trauma due to a tortfeasor's negligence toward another has a cause of action if the trauma was reasonably foreseeable. He emphasized that foreseeability is circumscribed by the plaintiff's relationship to the injured person and their proximity in time and space to the accident scene or injured person. Referencing the English case McLoughlin v. O'Brian, he noted that proximity does not necessarily mean direct sight or hearing at the scene, but can include direct perception of events making up the entire accident, including the immediate aftermath. He concluded that the 'outer limits' of this cause of action will be developed case-by-case, considering factors like space, time, distance, nature of injuries, and relationship, and that close emotional attachment beyond immediate family may qualify.
Analysis:
This case represents a pivotal modification of Florida's strict 'impact rule,' significantly expanding the scope of liability for negligent acts to include severe bystander emotional distress that results in discernible physical injury or death. By adopting a modified foreseeability test, the Florida Supreme Court brings its tort law closer to a majority of other jurisdictions that recognize such claims, albeit with more stringent requirements (physical manifestation, direct involvement, close relationship) than some. This ruling profoundly impacts wrongful death and personal injury litigation by establishing a direct cause of action for individuals who suffer severe physical consequences from witnessing traumatic events involving loved ones, thereby increasing potential recovery scenarios and pushing courts to define the 'outer limits' of 'direct involvement' and 'close relationship' on a case-by-case basis.
