Elliott v. Elliott
58 So. 3d 878, 2011 WL 362421, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1442 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Florida, to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress without a physical impact, a plaintiff must suffer a demonstrable physical injury caused by psychological trauma, be involved in some way in the event causing injury to a closely related person, and suffer the physical injury within a short time after the incident.
Facts:
- Appellant, O'Byrne, and his mother, Martha Elliott, resided together on the family farm.
- Martha Elliott failed to show up for work on November 7, 2007, prompting her daughter-in-law, Sharon Elliott, to notify family members.
- O'Byrne told family members and law enforcement that Martha left with an unknown man and would return in a few days.
- A search party, including cadaver canines, helicopters, and a dive team, searched the farm and nearby Suwannee River for Martha.
- Douglas Elliott (Appellee) used his personal tractor to dismantle a mulch pile covering bloody plastic and later interpreted a map drawn by O'Byrne, leading officers to Martha's remains.
- Mary Ann Hooper (Appellee) traveled to Suwannee County two days after Martha went missing, assisted in the search, and was later informed by Douglas that the remains were found.
- Medical testimony indicated Mary Ann Hooper suffered from stress, insomnia, anxiety, diarrhea, loss of appetite, and hair loss after her mother’s death, and was diagnosed with situational anxiety depression.
- Douglas Elliott experienced a "hollow feeling" and developed headaches, diabetes, and sleep apnea after the incident, but no medical testimony linked these ailments to O'Byrne's acts.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellees (Douglas Elliott and Mary Ann Hooper) filed a complaint against Appellant (O'Byrne) in the trial court (court of first instance) for negligent handling of a corpse, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and diminution of property value.
- During the trial, at the close of Appellees' case, Appellant moved for a directed verdict, arguing Appellees failed to prove a physical impact sufficient for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court denied Appellant's motion for a directed verdict, finding enough evidence for the jury to consider the claim.
- The jury found for Appellees on all claims, awarding $400,000 for negligent handling of a corpse, $600,000 for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and $100,000 for diminution of property value.
- Appellant moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court denied.
- Appellant moved for a new trial after the judgment was entered, which the trial court also denied.
- Appellant appealed to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, challenging the trial court's decisions, specifically arguing that a directed verdict should have been granted on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.
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 a plaintiff establish a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, absent a physical impact, by experiencing general ailments like stress, insomnia, anxiety, and the exacerbation of pre-existing conditions, or by being involved in the search for remains but not present during the actual negligent act?
Opinions:
Majority - Thomas, J.
No, a plaintiff does not establish a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, absent a physical impact, if their physical manifestations do not meet the stringent requirement for demonstrable physical injury or if they were not involved in the actual event causing the injury. The court reversed the trial court's denial of O'Byrne's motion for a directed verdict on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. Florida's 'impact rule' generally requires a plaintiff to show that emotional distress flows from physical injuries sustained in an impact to recover damages. While exceptions exist, such as when there is no direct impact but the plaintiff suffers a discernable physical injury, is involved in the event causing injury to a closely-related person, and suffers the injury shortly thereafter, the Appellees failed to meet these criteria. Citing Brown v. Cadillac Motor Car Division, the court emphasized that psychological trauma must cause a "demonstrable physical injury such as death, paralysis, muscular impairment, or similar objectively discernible physical impairment." The ailments presented by Appellees (headaches, diabetes, sleep apnea, stress, insomnia, anxiety, loss of appetite, hair loss, and bowel trouble) were deemed insufficient to qualify as the 'discernable physical injuries' discussed in precedents like Champion v. Gray or Zell v. Meek. Furthermore, the medical testimony regarding Mary Ann Hooper's injuries was equivocal, and no evidence linked Douglas Elliott's ailments to O'Byrne's actions. The court also found that Appellees failed to satisfy the requirement of being "involved in some way in the event causing the negligent injury to another," as neither Douglas nor Mary Ann was present when O'Byrne dismembered, cremated, and scattered their mother's remains. The court declined to extend the law to cover the temporal gap between the negligent acts and the Appellees' arrival, reaffirming the importance of proximity to the incident.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the stringent application of Florida's 'impact rule' and its narrow exceptions for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). It emphasizes that for NIED claims without physical impact, the physical injury manifestation must be objectively discernible and directly linked to the emotional trauma, going beyond general stress or exacerbation of pre-existing conditions. The ruling also underscores the necessity of the plaintiff's direct involvement in or sensory perception of the negligent event itself, rather than merely being involved in the aftermath or search. This limits the scope of NIED claims, making it harder for plaintiffs to recover for emotional distress unless they meet these high thresholds, reinforcing judicial caution against speculative emotional injury claims.
