LESLIE CLAYCOMB AND CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
SHERMAN A. EICHLES AND LOUISE EICHLES, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A jury instruction allowing damages for mental anguish resulting from negligence, without physical impact, is erroneous under Florida law.
[1] Damages for mental anguish or physical injury resulting from emotional distress caused by negligence are not recoverable without a physical impact upon the plaintiff.
[2] An instruction permitting a jury to award damages for mental anguish upon a finding of negligence is erroneous when no physical impact occurred.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs purchased a stolen car, which police then seized and returned to the rightful owner. Plaintiffs sued the police officer for negligence and …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Physical Impact Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
Appellants are a St. Petersburg police officer (Claycomb) and the City of St. Pe-tersburg. Appellees (the Eichles) are residents of St. Petersburg who unknowingly purchased a stolen Cadillac. They brought this action to recover damages for the alleged wrongful actions of Claycomb in taking possession of the Cadillac from the Eichles, impounding it, and returning it to the original owner, a Mr. Heilman. In a separate action for replevin, the Eichles were successful in regaining possession of the Cadillac from Mr. Heilman.
In this suit the Eichles demanded damages on theories of negligence and intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. They presented expert testimony to establish that they both suffered physical injury from the emotional distress of the incident. The trial judge submitted the case to the jury on both the issues of negligence and intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. Using a special verdict form, the jury returned a verdict finding Claycomb negligent but expressly finding that his actions were not malicious, reckless or wanton. The jury awarded damages of $40,000 to the Eichles. Judgment was entered thereon and this appeal followed.
Of the issues raised by appellants on this appeal, we find one to have merit. The trial judge instructed the jury that it could award damages to the Eichles for mental anguish. Although that instruction may have been intended to apply only if the jury found intentional infliction of emotional distress, it was not so limited. The rule in Florida is that damages may not be recovered for mental anguish or physical injury resulting from emotional stress caused by the negligence of another, in the absence of a physical impact upon the plaintiff. Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So. 2d 593 (Fla.1974). Clearly there was no physical impact in this .case. Under such circumstances, an instruction permitting the jury to award damages for mental anguish upon a finding of negligence is erroneous.
REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
SCHEB, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walton D. Champion v. Gray, 478 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1985)…Champion, as personal representative of his wife’s estate, then brought this action for damages caused by the driver’s negligence which led to Mrs. Champion’s death. Relying on Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So. 2d 593 (Fla.1974), and Claycomb v. Eichles, 399 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), the trial court dismissed the complaint. The district court affirmed the dismissal, following the longstanding Florida rule that a plaintiff must suffer a physical impact before recovering for emotional distress caused by the neg…
-
Walton D. Champion v. Gray, 420 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…at absent physical impact upon the plaintiff, damages may not be recovered for mental anguish or physical injury resulting from emotional stress caused by the negligence of another. Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So. 2d 593 (Fla.1974); Claycomb v. Eichles, 399 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Only the Florida Supreme Court can overrule the “impact rule” and we shall respect the rule until our supreme court sees fit to change it. Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So. 2d 593 (Fla.1974); Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973)…
-
Lopez v. Life Ins. Co. OF Am., 406 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…appropriately disposed of by motion to dismiss unless the allegations themselves are deficient in stating the cause of action. Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 386 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1980). [*1160] Second, appellee relies on Claycomb v. Eichles, 399 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) for the proposition that damages may not be recovered for mental anguish or physical injury resulting from emotional stress which is caused by negligence where there is no physical impact. We neither subscribe to nor repudiate tha…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1974)