RAY W. JOHNSON AND RETA L. JOHNSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
HERLONG AVIATION, INC., 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.
The Johnsons purchased a defective Cessna airplane from Herlong Aviation and sought damages for repair costs and emotional distress suffered during a return flight when the aircraft malfunctioned. The court reversed summary judgment dismissing the emotional distress claim and certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether damages for mental anguish are recoverable absent physical impact.
The court reversed summary judgment on count three (emotional distress damages) and held that the plaintiff is entitled to a trial on this claim. The court abolished the impact doctrine requirement for emotional distress damages and certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether damages for mental pain and anguish are recoverable absent impact.
[1] A plaintiff may recover for mental pain and anguish in the absence of physical impact.
[2] A claim for punitive damages requires evidence supporting such damages.
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“We do not rule as a matter of law that she is entitled to damages. We simply say that she is entitled to a trial on the amended count three of the complaint.”
Establishes that the court reversed summary judgment and allowed the emotional distress claim to proceed to trial rather than deciding the merits as a matter of law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRay Johnson purchased a Cessna airplane from Herlong Aviation. He and his wife took a trip to Freeport, Grand Bahamas, but on the return trip the airp…
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 Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Ray Johnson, purchased a Cessna airplane from Herlong Aviation, Inc., appellee. Subsequently, he and his wife, Reta L. Johnson, took a trip to Free-port, Grand Bahamas. On their return trip, the airplane developed severe vibrations and other difficulties. After landing in St. Petersburg, appellant had the airplane repaired. A long list of difficulties were alleged to have been present and the costs of repairs were $2,029.88. Appellants then brought suit against Herlong Aviation, Inc. in a four count complaint. Summary judgment was granted on counts three and four, leaving counts one and two to be adjudicated. The trial judge transferred the cause to the appropriate court, the civil and criminal court of record, on the basis that the jurisdictional amounts were below the circuit court’s jurisdiction.
Appellants assign as error the trial judge’s dismissal of counts three and four and maintain that there was a genuine issue of material fact alleged in both counts three and four. We believe the trial judge was correct in dismissing count four in that there was no evidence to be adduced which would constitute punitive damages.
We believe, however, that the trial judge erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint for damages for mental pain and anguish resulting from her fright during the return trip from the Grand Bahamas. We do not rule as a matter of law that she is entitled to damages. We simply say that she is entitled to a trial on the amended count three of the complaint.
Count three presents the question of compensable damages in the absence of impact. This court recently in Way v. Tampa Coca Cola Bottling Company, Fla.App.1972, 260 So.2d 288, abolished the necessity for impact in food and beverage cases and followed the rule laid down in Wallace v. Coca-Cola Bottling Plants, Inc., Me.1970, 269 A .2d 117.
We have reviewed the trend in Florida as well as in other jurisdictions and believe the time has come when the impact doctrine serves no useful purpose. See Hollie v. Radcliffe, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 616. We recognize that this holding is in conflict with case law of Florida and that appellee would be in a position to invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida by conflict certiorari. Therefore, we hereby certify to the Supreme Court of Florida, as a question of great public interest, the following:
CAN A PLAINTIFF RECOVER FOR MENTAL PAIN AND ANGUISH IN THE ABSENCE OF IMPACT?
For the foregoing reasons the cause is reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate plaintiffs’ amended count three and proceed to trial in the circuit court on all issues of damages in counts one, two and three.
PIERCE, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Herlong Aviation, Inc. v. Johnson, 291 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1974)…PER CURIAM. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, reported at 271 So. 2d 226. The District Court has certified its decision as one passing on a question of great public interest, to-wit: “Can a plaintiff recover for mental pain and anguish in the absence of impact?” The District Court, in reversing summary judgment for def…
-
Lloyd v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 570 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
Authorities Cited
- Hollie v. Radcliffe, 200 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- WAY v. Tampa Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)