Tanner v. Hartog
1996 WL 346936, 678 So. 2d 1317 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida's impact rule, a plaintiff cannot recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress without suffering a physical injury, and this rule bars a father's claim for purely emotional damages resulting from a medically negligent stillbirth.
Facts:
- Phyllis Tanner was in her forty-first week of pregnancy.
- During her forty-first week of pregnancy, she experienced a stillbirth.
- The stillbirth was allegedly the result of negligent medical care provided by Dr. Ellie M. Hartog, Dr. Alberto Duboy, and Lakeland Regional Medical Center.
- James Tanner, Phyllis's husband and the father of the fetus, sought to recover for the mental pain and anguish he suffered as a result of the stillbirth.
Procedural Posture:
- James and Phyllis Tanner filed a medical malpractice action in a Florida trial court against the physicians and hospital.
- The trial court initially dismissed the entire action as barred by the statute of limitations.
- The Tanners appealed to the District Court of Appeal, which affirmed the dismissal.
- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the appellate decision on the statute of limitations issue and remanded.
- On remand, the District Court of Appeal held that Phyllis Tanner had a valid claim, but the fetus did not have a wrongful death claim, and remanded to the trial court.
- The Tanners filed a second amended complaint, in which James Tanner asserted a claim on the theory that the fetus was his 'living tissue'. The trial court dismissed this complaint.
- The Tanners filed a third amended complaint, where James Tanner asserted a claim for 'negligent stillbirth' and the resulting emotional damages.
- The trial court dismissed James Tanner's claims with prejudice, concluding they were barred under existing Florida law.
- James Tanner, as appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal orders to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
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, which requires a plaintiff to sustain a physical injury to recover for emotional distress, bar a father's cause of action for mental pain and anguish resulting from a stillbirth caused by medical negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Patterson, J.
Yes, Florida's impact rule bars the father's cause of action for purely emotional damages resulting from a negligent stillbirth. The controlling legal principle, known as the impact rule, requires that a plaintiff suffer a physical injury to recover for emotional distress caused by another's negligence. Although the court recognized exceptions for certain torts like 'wrongful birth' where emotional damages are highly foreseeable and reliable, it felt constrained by recent precedent, R.J. v. Humana, which reaffirmed the impact rule's vitality to prevent speculative claims. The court reasoned that while a stillbirth causes genuine and profound emotional trauma for a father, his claim lacks a physical impact on his own person. Hesitant to create a new exception to the rule without guidance, the court affirmed the dismissal but certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court due to its great public importance.
Analysis:
This decision highlights the persistent tension in tort law between the traditional, restrictive impact rule and the modern recognition of foreseeable emotional injuries. By affirming the dismissal while simultaneously certifying the question, the court signaled that the common law may be outdated and ready for re-evaluation in the specific context of negligent stillbirth. The case illustrates a court bound by stare decisis but advocating for legal evolution, setting the stage for the Florida Supreme Court to potentially create a new cause of action or exception to the impact rule for parents who suffer a stillbirth due to medical malpractice.
