Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sheehan
1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 15416, 373 So. 2d 956 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Florida law permits an independent cause of action for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress where a defendant engages in extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional suffering, even in the absence of accompanying bodily harm or a separate tort.
Facts:
- Frances C. Sheehan purchased a Ford automobile which was financed by Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford Credit) through a retail installment contract.
- Sheehan subsequently moved to various locations and became delinquent on his account, leading Ford Credit to assign the account to its central recovery office in Michigan.
- On May 1, 1975, a woman from Ford Credit's Michigan office placed a telephone call to Sheehan's mother in Coventry, Rhode Island, falsely identifying herself as an employee of Mercy Hospital in San Francisco, California.
- The Ford Credit employee falsely informed Sheehan's mother that one or both of Sheehan's children had been involved in a serious automobile accident and that she was attempting to locate Sheehan.
- Believing the false information, Sheehan's mother provided the caller with Sheehan's home and business addresses and phone numbers in Jacksonville, Florida.
- Sheehan, upon learning of the false information from his sister, spent seven continuous hours frantically calling hospitals and police departments in San Francisco, deeply worried about his children, before finally discovering the information was untrue.
Procedural Posture:
- Frances C. Sheehan filed a complaint against Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford Credit) in a trial court.
- The complaint included a count for intentional infliction of mental distress and a second count alleging a violation of Section 559.72(7), Florida Statutes (1975).
- A jury returned verdicts awarding Sheehan compensatory and punitive damages on both counts.
- Ford Motor Credit Company (appellant) appealed the jury verdicts to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
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 law recognize an independent cause of action for intentional infliction of severe mental distress that is not incidental to or consequent upon any separate tort or other actionable wrong?
Opinions:
Majority - Ervin, Judge
Yes, Florida law does recognize an independent cause of action for intentional infliction of severe mental distress, even when not incidental to or consequent upon any separate tort or other actionable wrong. The court affirmed the jury verdict for intentional infliction of mental distress, adopting the majority rule found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 46(1). This rule holds liable one who, by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress, even without accompanying bodily harm. The court determined that Ford Credit was the 'causative force' which set the distressing communication in motion, rendering it liable regardless of whether it specifically intended to inflict severe emotional distress, as such distress was 'certain, or substantially certain to result,' or Ford Credit acted 'recklessly' in deliberate disregard of a high probability of distress. Sheehan's testimony of being 'extremely worried, upset, and nearly out of his mind for a continuous period of seven hours' was deemed sufficient proof of emotional distress, especially when combined with Ford Credit's 'outrageous' conduct that went 'beyond all possible bounds of decency.' Reviewing Florida Supreme Court precedents (Kirksey v. Jernigan, Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida, LaPorte v. Associated Independents, Inc., and Gilliam v. Stewart), the court concluded that an independent action for intentional infliction of severe mental distress is permissible in Florida when the alleged conduct is 'so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all bounds of decency.' The court reversed the verdict for the statutory violation, finding Section 559.72(7) inapplicable to actions originating in Michigan or Rhode Island, but affirmed the common law count for intentional infliction of mental distress and certified a question of great public interest to the Florida Supreme Court due to conflicting cases.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified Florida's adoption of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) as a standalone cause of action, aligning it with the majority of jurisdictions and the Restatement (Second) of Torts. By affirming liability for extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress, even without physical injury, the decision established a crucial avenue for redress against abusive and deceptive practices, particularly in contexts like debt collection. The court's emphasis on the defendant's conduct as central to proving distress provides a clear framework for future cases, serving as a deterrent against tactics that exploit personal vulnerabilities through cruel means.
