LAURA BROOKS, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, A SPECIAL TAX DISTRICT D/B/A MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, ET AL., 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.
A patient sought damages for severe mental anguish suffered when a hospital negligently lost her premature infant's body after the child's death. The court affirmed judgment for the hospital, holding that Florida law does not permit recovery for emotional distress without accompanying physical injury or impact, absent wantonness, willfulness, or malice.
A plaintiff cannot recover for mental anguish or emotional distress unaccompanied by physical impact or physical injury, absent wantonness, willfulness, or malice. The trial court correctly granted judgment in favor of the hospital.
[1] Recovery for mental anguish or emotional distress is barred absent physical impact or injury, unless the conduct was wanton, willful, or malicious.
[2] A hospital's negligence in misplacing a deceased infant's body does not create a cause of action for the mother's mental anguish when there is no physical impact or injur…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“there can be no recovery for mental anguish or emotional distress unaccompanied by any physical impact or physical injury to the plaintiff, in the absence of wantonness, wilfullness or malice”
States the controlling legal principle established by Florida case law that bars recovery in this case
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Brooks was a patient at appellee hospital where she delivered a premature baby who died the following day. Through negligence, the hospital …
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 Physical Impact Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, Judge.
The tragic facts of this case can be stated quite succinctly. Appellant, while a patient in the appellee-hospital delivered her baby, which, being premature, expired the following day. No negligence is charged to the hospital for the death of the child. However, the hospital through its negligence misplaced and never again located the child’s body, as a result of which appellant suffered severe mental anguish and emotional disturbance. There was no evidence of any physical impact or physical injury to appellant, nor any evidence of wantonness, wil fullness or malice on the part of appellee-hospital. Although permitting the case to go to the jury, the court reserved ruling on the hospital’s motion for directed verdict and subsequently, after the jury had returned a verdict for the plaintiff, the court granted the defendant-hospital’s motion for judgment N.O.V. Appellant assigns that order as error and appellees cross-assign error to one of the jury instructions.
In a line of cases commencing with Dunahoo v. Bess, 146 Fla. 182, 200 So. 541 (1941) and culminating in Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So. 2d 593 (Fla.1974), the courts of this state have consistently held that there can be no recovery for mental anguish or emotional distress unaccompanied by any physical impact or physical injury to the plaintiff, in the absence of wantonness, wilfullness or malice. See, e. g., Herlong Aviation, Inc. v. Johnson, 291 So. 2d 603 (Fla.1974); Crane v. Loftin, 70 So. 2d 574 (Fla.1954); Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So. 2d 188, 17 A.L.R.2d 766 (Fla.1950); Carter v. Lake Wales Hospital Association, Inc., 213 So. 2d 898 (2nd DCA Fla.1968) ; Kimple v. Riedel, 133 So. 2d 437 (2nd DCA Fla.1961). We are unable to make any meaningful distinction between the facts of this case and those of the several cases cited above insofar as application of this principle of law is concerned. We therefore conclude that the trial court quite correctly granted the defendant’s motion for judgment N.O. V. It is unnecessary for us to decide the issue raised by appellees’ cross-assignment of error. Affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Catania v. E. Airlines, Inc., 381 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ural force, effect, and weight of its actions would cause such mental distress.” This count likewise was properly dismissed. See Steiner and Munach, P. A. v. Williams, 334 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); and Brooks v. South Broward Hospital District, 325 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). A fourth count (found only in plaintiff Duerr’s complaint) claims damages because the defendant “shadowed” Duerr and kept him under surveillance. It is alleged that this is a count claiming tort liability for the invasion of th…
-
Morton Friedman v. Mut. Broad. Sys., Inc., 380 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…on the part of King that would have made his employer liable. In this connection, see: Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So. 2d 188 (Fla.1950); Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc., 100 So. 2d 396 (Fla.1958); Brooks v. South Broward Hospital District, 325 So. 2d 479 (Fla.4th DCA 1975); Steiner and Munach v. Williams, 334 So. 2d 39 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Gellert v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 370 So. 2d 802 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). In Gellert v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., supra, this court, in considering the question of a cla…
-
Clark McPHAIL v. G. Frank Jenkins, D.D.S., 382 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…gence, and they do not reasonably imply malice or the entire want of care or attention to duty, or great indifference to the person of others such as was held to warrant recovery in Kirksey v. Jernigan. See Brooks v. South Broward Hospital District, 325 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So. 2d 593 (Fla.1974), and Ford Motor Credit Corp. v. Sheehan, 373 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). We must also hold that appellants are not entitled to recovery based upon the theory that Dr. Jenkins br…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1950)
- Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1974)
- Crane v. Loftin, 70 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1954)
- Dunahoo v. Bess, 146 Fla. 182 (Fla. 1941)
- Hornsby v. State, 146 Fla. 23 (Fla. 1941)
- Carter v. Lake Wales Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., 213 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Herlong Aviation, Inc. v. Johnson, 291 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1974)
- Kimple v. Riedel, 133 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)