GEORGE JACKSON, APPELLANT,
v.
GREG SWEAT D/B/A GREG'S VIDEO, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's negligent infliction of emotional distress claim against video store owner, holding that absent physical impact, no such claim can be maintained.
A plaintiff cannot maintain an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress without physical impact, even when the defendant's negligence created the dangerous condition.
[1] The impact rule bars recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress absent physical impact or contact with the plaintiff, even when the defendant's negligence cr…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson sought damages for emotional distress allegedly caused by negligent conditions at a video store operated by Sweat.…
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
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final summary judgment entered in favor of appellee in this action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. See Rivers v. Grimsley Oil Co., 842 So. 2d 975, 975-76 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant and finding that plaintiff could not maintain action for negligent infliction of emotional distress against employer for a robbery that occurred at convenience store work place where robber did not physically harm plaintiff); Ruttger Hotel Corp. v. Wagner, 691 So. 2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (rejecting argument of plaintiffs that “the mere fact that the robber touched them when he ‘pushed’ them into the bathroom [in their hotel room] is sufficient impact to maintain their negligent infliction of emotional distress claim” against the hotel); Jordan v. Equity Props. & Dev. Co., 661 So. 2d 1307, 1308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (affirming order granting summary judgment in favor of mall owner and rejecting argument of plaintiff that impact rule did not bar recovery of damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress from encounter with gunman in mall, during which appellant hit gunman in chest and face with a deposit bag and stumbled backward).
Cf. Rowell v. Holt, 850 So. 2d 474 (Fla.2003) (affirming vitality of impact rule in Florida, but declining to apply rule to bar recovery because of special professional duty created by attorney-client relationship between plaintiff and defendant and fact of extended pretrial confinement based upon defendant’s professional negligence).
AFFIRMED.
KAHN, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Willis v. Gami Golden Glades, LLC., 967 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2007)…ting Reynolds v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 611 So. 2d 1294, 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)). The other district courts which have reviewed robbery-related situations in light of the impact rule have similarly not allowed recovery. Jackson v. Sweat, 855 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (mental distress from police arrest of patron in a convenience store when she set off burglary alarm); Rivers v. Grimsley Oil Co., 842 So. 2d 975, 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (robbery of store clerk in a convenience store by person ar…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Rowell v. Julianne M. Holt, 850 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 2003)
- Ruttger Hotel Corp. v. Wagner, 691 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Jordan v. Equity Props. & Dev. Co., 661 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Rivers v. Grimsley OIL Co., Inc., 842 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)