YVONNE CARTER AND HOWARD E. CARTER, APPELLANTS,
v.
LAKE WALES HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC., A NON-PROFIT FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
This case addresses whether parents can recover damages for emotional distress when their newborn was mistakenly discharged from a hospital to a third party and returned hours later with no physical injury to mother or child. The court affirms dismissal, holding that Florida law does not allow recovery for pure emotional distress unconnected with physical injury absent gross negligence or worse.
The court held that under Florida law, no cause of action exists for recovery of damages for mental pain and anguish unconnected with physical injury arising from simple negligence, whether based on negligent breach of contract or gross negligence alone. Recovery for purely emotional distress requires conduct rising to the level of malice, willful and wanton misconduct, or conduct justifying punitive damages.
“This court is committed to the rule, and we re-affirm it herein, that there can be no recovery for mental pain and anguish unconnected with physical injury in an action arising out of the negligent breach of a contract whereby simple negligence is involved.”
Establishes the foundational rule prohibiting emotional distress damages absent physical injury in simple negligence cases.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhile appellant-wife was hospitalized after giving birth, hospital employees mistakenly allowed a third person to take the couple's newborn child, bel…
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 Negligent Breach Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, plaintiffs below, appeal a final order dismissing their third amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action against the defendant-appellee, Lake Wales Hospital Association, Inc.
The wrongful act alleged to have given rise to the appellants’ claim for damages is that while appellant-wife was in defendant-hospital subsequent to giving birth to a child, the defendant-hospital through its employees permitted the child of appellants to be taken home by a third person under the mistaken belief that it was the third person’s child.
After the child had been out of the hospital for several hours, the mistake was discovered and the child was returned to the hospital. Neither the child nor its mother, appellant-wife, sustained any physical injury; however, appellant-wife is alleged to have suffered the infliction of severe mental distress. In short, the third amended complaint claimed actual and punitive damages for severe emotional distress unconnected with any physical impact of any kind.
In essence, appellants’ third amended complaint proceeds on two theories: negligent breach of contract and gross negligence.
The Supreme Court of Florida, in Kirksey v. Jernigan, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 188, stated at page 189, 17 A.L.R.2d 766:
“This court is committed to the rule, and we re-affirm it herein, that there can be no recovery for mental pain and anguish unconnected with physical injury in an action arising out of the negligent breach of a contract whereby simple negligence is involved. * * *
“But we do not feel constrained to extend this rule to cases founded purely in tort, where the wrongful act is such as to reasonably imply malice, or where, from the entire want of care of atten*900tion to duty, or great indifference to the persons, property, or rights of others, such malice will be imputed as would justify the assessment of exemplary or punitive damages.”
A careful reading of appellants’ third amended complaint fails to reveal that anything other than simple negligence is alleged.
Therefore, under appellants’ first theory, negligent breach of contract, no cause of action is stated as recovery cannot be had for mental pain and anguish unconnected with any physical injury in an action arising from the negligent breach of a contract in which simple negligence is involved. Kirksey v. Jernigan, supra; Dunahoo v. Bess, 1941, 146 Fla. 182, 200 So. 541; International Ocean Telegraph Company v. Saunders, 1893, 32 Fla. 434, 14 So. 148, 21 L.R.A. 810.
Appellants’ second theory for recovery is based on gross negligence on the part of appellee. Under Florida law, gross negligence will not justify the imposition of punitive damages. Something more than gross negligence is needed to justify punitive damages. This is clearly stated in Carraway v. Revell, Fla.1959, 116 So.2d 16, at page 22:
“ * * * [Gjross negligence * * * is that kind or degree of negligence which lies in the area between ordinary negligence and wilful and wanton misconduct sufficient to support a judgment for exemplary or punitive damages ‡ ”
Therefore, the appellants, even though they had alleged sufficient facts to constitute gross negligence, would not be entitled to recover against the appellee under the rule laid down in Kirksey v. Jernigan, supra.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and ALLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)…n Corporation v. Stuart, 242 So. 2d 185, 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Gross negligence alone is not sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages. Dowling Lumber Co. v. King, 62 Fla. 151, 57 So. 337 (1911); Carter v. Lake Wales Hospital Association, 213 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). The character of negligence necessary to support an award of punitive damages is the same as is required to sustain a conviction for manslaughter (although, of course, the quantum of proof is different). Carraway, supra; Sauer, s…
-
White Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1984)…ts. See, e.g., Martin (Government Employees Insurance Co.) v. Young, 443 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Ellis v. Golconda Corp., 352 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 714 (Fla.1978); Carter v. Lake Wales Hospital Association, 213 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). In Carraway we made it clear that something more than gross negligence is needed to justify the imposition of punitive damages: [Gjross negligence ... is that kind or degree of negligence which lies in the area between ordinary…
-
Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1974)…of the malicious destruction of her dog was properly submitted to the jury for its consideration in assessing damages. The following two cases come from the Second District Court of Appeal. In the case of Carter v. Lake Wales Hospital Association, 213 So. 2d 898 (Fla.App.2d, 1968), the parents of a baby brought an action against a hospital to recover actual and punitive damages for mental pain and anguish unconnected with any physical injury. The basis of the suit was that the hospital had permitted the bab…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Royal Carraway v. Revell, 116 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1959)
- Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1950)
- Dunahoo v. Bess, 146 Fla. 182 (Fla. 1941)
- Int'l Ocean Tel. Co. v. Saunders, 32 Fla. 434 (Fla. 1893)
- Lotierzo v. Euteneuer (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
- Hornsby v. State, 146 Fla. 23 (Fla. 1941)