Meek v. Zell
| Citation | 636 So.2d 105 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D828 Gaylynn Sue MEEK and Barry M. Meek, Appellants, v. Samuel ZELL, Trustee under Trust Agreement dated |
| Decision Date | 03 April 1972 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Christopher C. Hazelip and Clinton A. Wright, III, of Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay, Jacksonville, appellants.
Jack W. Shaw, Jr. and Michael J. Obringer of Osborne, McNatt, Shaw, O'Hara, Brown & Obringer, Jacksonville, for appellees.
Arnold R. Ginsberg of Perse, P.A. & Ginsberg, P.A., Miami, for amicus curiae, Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
Gaylynn Sue Meek (Meek) and her husband Barry M. Meek seek review of a summary final judgment entered against them by the trial court. 1 The facts are not in dispute. Meek and her parents returned to the latter's home at Cedar Grove, an apartment complex, on March 19, 1990, following an overnight boating trip. They noticed a small box on their doorstep upon entering the apartment. Meek and her mother stepped over the box and into the kitchen to unload several items. A tremendous explosion rocked the entire apartment while they were still in the kitchen. The force of the explosion shattered windows, light fixtures, and also blew a smoke detector and thermostat from the wall. A glass light fixture suspended from the kitchen ceiling shattered and fell on Meek and her mother. Meek screamed and then made her way through the billowing, black smoke to the front door where she saw her father, who lay scorched, mutilated, and dying. Meek did not suffer any significant physical injuries as a direct result of the smoke or shattered pieces of glass that fell on her.
Meek began having insomnia (for which she took prescribed medication) shortly after the bombing, coupled with depression (for which she continues to take prescribed medication), short-term memory losses, an extreme fear of loud noises, bad dreams, and an inability to stop reliving the event. She began psychological treatment within three weeks of the bombing and continued intermittently for a period of two years with three different psychologists. Meek's sexual relationship with her husband also suffered adversely during this time.
Meek first began experiencing physical impairment in December 1990 (approximately nine months after the bombing), when she developed severe pains in the upper area of her stomach. The pain below her rib cage became worse in January 1991. She became very ill in March 1991, with pain spreading into her chest area. This pain was eased somewhat with ulcer medication prescribed by her physician. She experienced a blockage in her esophagus in November 1991, was unable to swallow, and had difficulty in breathing. The results of a diagnostic test (esophagram) were negative. Meek developed joint pain in her hips and elbows in May 1992, which she treats with Ibuprofen. Meek's treating physician expressed the following opinion:
I have treated [Meek] for anxiety with depressed mood, orodental dysphagia [esophageal contractions], fibromyalgia [pain in hip and elbow joints], dyspepsia [stomach pains] and irritable bowel symptoms. In my medical opinion, within a reasonable degree of probability, the psychological trauma she suffered as a result of her father's death has contributed to her physical symptoms and increased [her] need for medical care. Additionally, in my medical opinion, within a reasonable degree of probability, she has suffered from insomnia and anxiety with depressed mood, with situational depression secondary to her father's death.
Meek sued Zell (owner of the apartment complex) and First Property (apartment managers) alleging that they were negligent in failing to take reasonable steps to protect their tenants and invitees from foreseeable criminal conduct. 2 Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. They did not dispute the foreseeability of the bombing which killed Meek's father. They instead asserted that Meek suffered no physical injuries from the shattered glass which hit her during the explosion, and that the physical symptoms which she subsequently suffered did not occur within a "short time" of her psychic injury. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that there had been no "physical impact" upon Meek as that term is defined by Florida law and "specifically that pieces of glass from a shattered light fixture falling upon a person without cutting that person or injuring that person does not constitute any physical impact." The trial court further concluded that "unspecified stomach pains, insomnia, difficulty in swallowing and breathing and unspecified pains in the hip and elbow joints do not constitute 'demonstrable physical injury' or 'discernable physical impairments' "; nor do the injuries meet the temporal proximity requirements of Florida law. We reverse.
Florida strictly followed the requirements of the impact doctrine in precluding recovery for psychic injury alone, until the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zell v. Meek
...OF PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT WILL BE CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED NOT TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE PSYCHIC TRAUMA [part II]? Meek v. Zell, 636 So.2d 105, 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We approve the decision of the district court and answer part I of the ......
- Zell v. Meek