Gilliam v. Stewart
291 So. 2d 593 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligence action, a plaintiff cannot recover damages for physical injuries resulting from emotional distress caused by a defendant's simple negligence unless the plaintiff also suffered a direct physical impact from an external force.
Facts:
- Freddie Laverne Gilliam negligently operated a motor vehicle owned by Robert Leo Bradley.
- Gilliam's vehicle crashed into the home of Jane R. Stewart.
- The crash occurred near where Stewart was located inside her house, causing her to experience extreme fright and emotional distress.
- Stewart was not physically touched or impacted by the vehicle or any debris from the collision.
- As a direct result of the fright and emotional stress from the incident, Stewart suffered a fatal heart attack.
Procedural Posture:
- J. Parks Stewart, as administrator of Jane R. Stewart's estate, sued Freddie Gilliam and Robert Bradley in a Florida trial court for negligence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Gilliam and Bradley, applying Florida's established 'impact rule'.
- Stewart, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District.
- The District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's summary judgment, choosing to recede from the Supreme Court's precedent on the impact rule.
- Recognizing its departure from established law, the District Court of Appeal certified a question of great public interest to the Supreme Court of Florida regarding the continued validity of the impact rule.
- Gilliam and Bradley, as petitioners, sought review in the Supreme Court of Florida.
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' prevent a person from recovering damages for a definite physical injury, such as a fatal heart attack, that results from fright caused by a defendant's negligence when there was no physical impact on the injured person?
Opinions:
Majority - Drew, J., Retired
Yes, Florida's 'impact rule' prevents recovery for physical injuries resulting from negligently induced fright in the absence of a physical impact. The Court reaffirms its long-standing precedent requiring a physical impact for a plaintiff to recover in such negligence actions. While acknowledging that the impact rule is a judicial creation that the Supreme Court has the power to alter or abolish, the Court finds no valid justification to do so in this case. The Court also admonished the lower appellate court for overruling Supreme Court precedent, stating that the proper procedure is for lower courts to follow existing precedent and certify a question of great public interest to ensure legal uniformity across the state.
Dissenting - Adkins, J.
No, the 'impact rule' is an outdated doctrine that should be abolished, and recovery should be permitted. A plaintiff who suffers a definite and objective physical injury as a result of emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant's negligence should be allowed to recover damages, regardless of the absence of a physical impact. The historical justifications for the rule—fear of fraudulent claims, difficulty in proving causation, and the potential for a flood of litigation—are no longer valid. The dissent argues that Florida should join the majority of jurisdictions that have abandoned the impact rule and instead adopt a 'zone of danger' test, which allows recovery for those who were at physical risk from the defendant's negligence and suffered a substantial, medically verifiable physical injury as a result.
Dissenting - Ervin, J.
No, recovery should be allowed, and the District Court's action was not improper. District Courts of Appeal are not 'blindly required' to follow Supreme Court precedent that has become obsolete or lost its judicial vitality due to changing circumstances. As courts with final appellate jurisdiction in most cases, they must decide appeals according to the justice of the cause, and the Supreme Court's role is to resolve conflicts after they arise, not to prevent lower courts from adapting the law to modern realities.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant, albeit temporary, reaffirmation of the traditional 'impact rule' for negligent infliction of emotional distress in Florida, placing the state in the minority of jurisdictions at the time. The case is also a cornerstone for understanding Florida's judicial hierarchy, as it firmly establishes that lower courts are bound by stare decisis and must not overrule Supreme Court precedent. Although the majority opinion prevailed, Justice Adkins's comprehensive dissent, which outlined the history, policy failings, and modern trend away from the impact rule, provided the intellectual foundation that the Florida Supreme Court would later adopt when it eventually abolished the rule.
