Zell v. Meek
665 So.2d 1048, 1995 WL 582218 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The temporal proximity between a psychic trauma and the manifestation of a physical injury is not an arbitrary bar to a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, but rather one factor for the trier of fact to consider when determining the causal connection.
Facts:
- Samuel Zell and First Property, who owned and managed an apartment complex, received bomb threats prior to an incident but failed to warn tenants or take reasonable steps for their security.
- Gaylynn Sue Meek, her father, and her mother returned to the father's apartment after an overnight trip, noticing a small box on the doorstep.
- Meek and her mother stepped into the kitchen while Meek's father remained at the front door, immediately followed by a tremendous explosion.
- Meek made her way through smoke to the front door, where she saw her father scorched, mutilated, and dying.
- Although Meek did not suffer direct physical injuries from the explosion, she immediately developed severe psychological symptoms including insomnia, depression, short-term memory loss, extreme fear of loud noises, and bad dreams, for which she sought psychological treatment within three weeks.
- Approximately nine months after the bombing, Meek began experiencing various serious physical ailments, including upper stomach pain, esophageal blockage, difficulty swallowing and breathing, and joint pain.
- Meek's treating physician opined that, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, the psychological trauma she suffered from her father's death contributed to her physical symptoms and increased her need for medical care.
Procedural Posture:
- Gaylynn Sue Meek and Barry M. Meek sued Samuel Zell and First Property alleging a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress in a trial court (court of first instance).
- The trial court entered a summary final judgment against the Meeks.
- The Meeks sought review in the district court (intermediate appellate court) of the summary final judgment.
- The district court reversed the summary final judgment and certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court.
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 the interval of time between a psychic trauma and the manifestation of a physical injury serve as an arbitrary bar to a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, or is it merely one factor for the trier of fact to consider in determining causation?
Opinions:
Majority - Anstead, Justice
No, the interval of time between a psychic trauma and the manifestation of physical trauma is not an arbitrary period after which physical impairment will be conclusively presumed not to have been caused by the psychic trauma. Yes, it is merely one issue for the trier of fact's consideration, but its role is qualified as one factor in proving causation. The Court reaffirmed its prior holding in Champion v. Gray, which allowed recovery for significant discernible physical injuries caused by psychological trauma resulting from witnessing the negligent death or injury of a close family member, thereby relaxing the strict 'impact rule'. However, the Court receded from the statement in Champion that imposed a rigid 'short time' limitation on when the physical impairment must manifest. The Court reasoned that temporal proximity should not be an absolute, inflexible requirement but rather a relevant factor for the factfinder (judge or jury) to consider in determining causation. Its importance will vary based on the specific facts of each case, and other factors like the nature and severity of the injury and the evidence presented are also pertinent. The Court emphasized that the fundamental question is whether the psychic impact caused the physical injury, regardless of whether that injury became manifest immediately or months later. The Court rejected an arbitrary time period for barring claims, finding such a rule unworkable, difficult to define, and potentially denying access to justice for persons with meritorious claims. The Court reiterated the four elements required for a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim: 1) the plaintiff must suffer a physical injury; 2) the physical injury must be caused by the psychological trauma; 3) the plaintiff must be involved in some way in the event causing the negligent injury to another; and 4) the plaintiff must have a close personal relationship to the directly injured person. Applying these principles, the Court found that Gaylynn Meek had presented sufficient evidence—including immediate psychic symptoms, progressive exacerbation, onset of physical impairment within nine months, and medical testimony establishing causation—to create a factual dispute for a jury.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and broadens the scope of claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress in Florida by removing a strict temporal requirement for the manifestation of physical injury following psychic trauma. By adopting a more flexible, evidence-based approach to causation, the court affirmed that the complex relationship between psychological trauma and physical health should be determined by a fact-finder on a case-by-case basis. This decision allows plaintiffs with legitimate but delayed physical manifestations of psychic trauma to pursue claims, highlighting the judiciary's adaptation of legal principles to advancements in medical understanding. It underscores the importance of medical evidence and expert testimony in establishing causation in such cases.
