PEDRO CRUZ
v.
NORTH SHORE MEDICAL CENTER, INC.

Fla. 3d DCA | 2021-05-26
No. 19-1843
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2021)

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.


Holding

What constitutes outrageous conduct in an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is determined by the trial court as a matter of law, and the plaintiff's subjective response to the conduct does not control whether the tort occurred.


Headnotes

[1] Whether conduct constitutes outrageous conduct sufficient for intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law for the trial court to determine, not a qu…

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 intelligence

Key Quotes

“What constitutes outrageous conduct is a question that must be decided as a matter of law.”

Court discussing the standard for evaluating intentional infliction of emotional distress claims

Facts & Procedural History

Pedro Cruz brought a claim against North Shore Medical Center, Inc. The case involved allegations of conduct that Cruz claimed caused emotional distre…

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.


Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Deauville Hotel Mgmt. v. Ward, 219 So. 3d 949, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“What constitutes outrageous conduct is a question that must be decided as a matter of law.”) (citing De La Campa v. Grifols Am., Inc., 819 So. 2d 940, 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“What constitutes outrageous conduct is a question for the trial court to determine as a matter of law.”); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (explaining that “[t]he plaintiff's ‘subjective response’ to the conduct ‘does not control the question of whether the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress occurred.’”)).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw