MARIA LUISA RIVERA, APPELLANT,
v.
RANDLE EASTERN AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., HUGH RANDOLPH CAINES, JR., AND FIDELITY AND CASUALTY OF NEW YORK, 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.
Maria Rivera sued Randle Eastern Ambulance Service for personal injuries and mental distress suffered when an ambulance hit a bus bench where she and her husband were seated, killing her husband. The trial court granted a directed verdict against her mental distress claim, but the appellate court reversed, holding that Florida law allows recovery for emotional pain and suffering witnessed in the plaintiff's presence.
A plaintiff is entitled to a jury determination on whether she may be compensated for mental pain and suffering caused by witnessing a loved one's fatal injury in her presence, particularly when the plaintiff herself suffered physical injury from the same negligent act. The court rejected the narrow approach in Selfe v. Smith and adopted the broader rule from National Car Rental Systems v. Bostic.
[1] A plaintiff may recover for mental pain and suffering resulting from witnessing the death of a loved one in their presence, even if the plaintiff also suffered physical i…
[2] A directed verdict should not be granted if there is sufficient evidence to allow a jury to determine the plaintiff's entitlement to compensation for mental pain and suff…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“it was not error for the fact finder to receive evidence regarding the emotional pain and suffering felt by the plaintiff when his mother was killed in his presence”
Establishes that under Bostic, recovery for emotional distress caused by witnessing a loved one's death is permissible, distinguishing from the narrower Selfe rule.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaria and Juan Rivera were seated on a bus bench waiting for a bus when a Randle Eastern ambulance ran a red light, collided with another vehicle, 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 Impact Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
Maria Rivera and the estate of Juan Rivera, her late husband, filed an action against Randle Eastern Ambulance Service seeking damages for the wrongful death of Juan and for the personal injuries suffered by Maria as a result of Randle Eastern’s alleged negligence. The wrongful death claim was settled and the case proceeded to trial on Maria’s personal injury claim which, in large part, was based upon a theory of mental distress. At the close of all the evidence the trial court granted Ran-dle Eastern’s motion for a directed verdict. For the reasons which follow we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.
Mr. and Mrs. Rivera were seated on a bus bench waiting for the next bus when a Randle Eastern ambulance ran a red light, collided with another vehicle, careened across the intersection and smashed into the bus bench, shattering it. The impact threw Mrs. Rivera backwards, injuring her head. As Mr. Rivera lay pinned beneath the ambulance, bleeding profusely, Mrs. Rivera screamed for someone to come to his aid. Mr. Rivera died a short time later at Jackson Memorial Hospital.
The trial court, relying on Selfe v. Smith, 397 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied mem., 407 So. 2d 1005 (Fla.1981), directed a verdict in favor of Randle Eastern because of the lack of sufficient medical evidence or sufficient legal evidence to go to the jury to determine a jury verdict on the issue of whether Maria Luisa Rivera’s mental injuries were due to her own experience by being involved in the accident or if such injuries were the result of seeing her husband lying there (at the scene of the accident) bleeding to death.
We believe that this case is controlled not by Selfe but by National Car Rental Systems v. Bostic, 423 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In Bostic, a ease involving a plaintiff who was injured in an automobile accident in which his mother was killed, this court held that it was not error for the fact finder to receive evidence regarding the emotional pain and suffering felt by the plaintiff when his mother was killed in his presence. See id. at 917. The court in Selfe limited the plaintiff’s recovery to mental distress caused by the plaintiff’s own injury or by the traumatic event considered in relation to the plaintiff alone. See Selfe at 350. To the extent that .Selfe and Bostic cannot be harmonized we reject Selfe and adhere to Bostic.
Viewing, as we must, the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict is directed, and this state’s inexplicable affinity with the impact rule having been satisfied,1 we conclude that Mrs. Rivera is entitled to a jury determination as to whether she may be compensated for her mental pain and suffering. See Bostic.
Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.
. We agree with Judge Pearson's special concurrence in Bostic, particularly his statement "that the reasons for the [impact] rule have been thoroughly repudiated and that the rule should be abolished and replaced, as it has been in other jurisdictions, by some more enlightened rule,” id. at 918 (citations omitted).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schreidell v. Rabbi Bernard P. Shoter, 500 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…5th DCA 1985); Ferber v. Orange Blossom Center, Inc., 388 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Otey v. Florida Power & Light Co., 400 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So. 2d 465 (Fla.1982); Rivera v. Randle Eastern Ambulance Service, 446 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Therefore, no factual determination is required, and judgment must be entered for the movant as a matter of law. Meus v. Eagle Family Discount Stores, Inc., 499 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). According to the uncontradicted test…
-
Ruttger Hotel Corp. v. Wagner, 691 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ome cases, it still remains the law throughout Florida. See American Federation of Gov’t Employees v. DeGrio, 454 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)(Jorgenson, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part); Rivera v. Randle Eastern Ambulance Service, Inc., 446 So. 2d 200, 202 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); National Car Rental System, Inc. v. Bostic, 423 So. 2d 915 (Pearson, J., concurring specially), rev. denied, 436 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1983). Accordingly, we reverse and remand the judgment below with instructions to enter a d…1 / 2
-
Ginsberg v. Chastain, 501 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…ct, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Schreidell v. Shoter, 500 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Holmes v. Don Mealey Chevrolet, Inc., 468 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Rivera v. Randle Eastern Ambulance Service, 446 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). No factual determination is therefore required and a judgment must be entered for the movant as a matter of law. Meus v. Eagle Family Discount Stores, Inc., 499 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA. 1986) (order denying motion to dismiss); se…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mitchell v. State, 407 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Nat'l CAR Rental Sys., Inc. v. Bostic, 423 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Selfe v. Smith, 397 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)