Gracey v. Eaker
| Decision Date | 30 December 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-1075.,99-1075. |
| Citation | 747 So.2d 475 |
| Parties | Donna GRACEY and Joseph Gracey, Appellants, v. Donald W. EAKER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nolan Carter and Karen R. Wasson, Orlando, for Appellant.
Griffith J. Winthrop III, Winter Park, for Appellee.
Joseph and Donna Gracey appeal the final order entered by the trial court dismissing with prejudice their lawsuit against Dr. Donald Eaker. We affirm.
The complaint further alleged that, despite the confidentiality of the disclosed information1, Dr. Eaker revealed to each of "the [Graceys] individual, confidential information which the other spouse had told him in their private sessions." Upon such disclosure, the Graceys confronted each other regarding what they had learned and realized that Dr. Eaker had "embarked upon a plan of action or course of action designed to get the [Graceys] to divorce each other."
Dr. Eaker moved to dismiss the complaint, averring that the Graceys failed to assert a viable cause of action because the complaint alleged only emotional, and not any physical, injuries resulting from Dr. Eaker's alleged negligence. Upon review, the trial court dismissed the complaint. Dr. Eaker maintains that the trial court's dismissal order must be affirmed because Florida law does not recognize a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress without an accompanying physical injury. We are constrained to agree.
The Graceys' complaint sounded in negligence and sought recovery for purely emotional injuries. The trial court aptly recognized that dismissal of the complaint was warranted because the Florida courts do not recognize the negligent infliction of emotional distress as a free standing tort. See R.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., 652 So.2d 360, 365 (Fla.1995) (Kogan, J., concurring specially)
; see also Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Hagan, 750 So.2d 83 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Instead, Florida courts have historically adhered to a requirement that some physical impact to a claimant must be alleged and demonstrated before the claimant can recover damages. This requirement has been referred to as the "impact rule." See Zell v. Meek, 665 So.2d 1048, 1049 (Fla.1995). While our supreme court has recognized a few exceptions to the impact rule,2 none of which apply to the facts presented here, the court has continually reaffirmed its position that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gracey v. Eaker
...Goodis, Thompson, Groseclose & Richardson, P.A., St. Petersburg, FL, for Respondent. LEWIS, J. We have for review Gracey v. Eaker, 747 So.2d 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), in which the district court affirmed the dismissal of an action initiated by the petitioners, Donna and Joseph Gracey ("Grace......
-
Willis v. Gami Golden Glades, LLC.
...the question of whether the impact rule should be abolished or amended), quashed, 804 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2001); Gracey v. Eaker, 747 So.2d 475, 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (certifying the question of whether there should be an exception to the impact rule for claims resulting from the breach of a......
-
Curtis v. Porter
...physical injury resulting from the distress. See, e.g., Doe v. Southeastern Univ., 732 F.Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C. 1990); Gracey v. Eaker, 747 So.2d 475, 477 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1999); Czaplicki v. Gooding Joint Sch. Dist. No. 231, 116 Idaho 326, 775 P.2d 640, 646 (1989); Reynolds v. Highland Manor,......
- State Of Haw.'i v. Benson
-
The strict Ohio Supreme Court decision in Biddle: third party law firm held liable for inducing disclosure of medical information.
...also reluctant to recognize negligent infliction of emotional distress when only emotional distress damages existed. See Gracey v. Eaker, 747 So. 2d 475 (Fl. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) (failing to recognize a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress without an accompanying p......