Rowell v. Holt
Decision Date | 26 June 2003 |
Docket Number | No. SC01-2010.,SC01-2010. |
Parties | John C. ROWELL, Petitioner, v. Julianne M. HOLT, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Theodore "Ted" E. Karatinos of Seeley & Karatinos, P.A., St. Petersburg, Florida; and James W. Holliday of Prugh, Holliday & Deem, P.L., Tampa, FL, for Petitioner.
Todd W. Vraspir of Papy, Weissenborn, Poole & Vraspir, P.A., Spring Hill, FL, for Respondent.
Joseph W. Little, Gainesville, Florida; Robert C. Widman, Venice, Florida; and Robert V. Potter, Jr., Clearwater, FL, for Ernest Morgan and Beverly Keehnle, Amici Curiae.
We have for review a decision of a district court of appeal on the following question, which the court certified to be of great public importance:
DOES THE IMPACT RULE APPLY TO PROHIBIT THE RECOVERY OF NONECONOMIC DAMAGES IN A LEGAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM WHEN THE NEGLIGENCE OF A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY RESULTS IN A LOSS OF LIBERTY AND RESULTING EMOTIONAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM?
Holt v. Rowell, 798 So.2d 767, 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Because we believe the instant case presents a unique factual scenario deserving of an equally tailored principle of law, we rephrase the certified question as follows:
For the following reasons, we answer the rephrased certified question in the negative. We therefore quash that portion of the district court's decision reversing the jury award of damages for psychological injury, and remand the case for reinstatement of the award of noneconomic damages.
The facts underlying the instant action, exhaustively well detailed in the district court's decision below, are as follows:
The first appearance judge, concerned that Mr. Rowell might be wrongfully charged, ordered that Mr. Rowell's case be placed on the docket for review on Tuesday, July 11, four days later. This hearing never occurred. According to the assistant public defenders involved in this case, they took no responsibility in keeping track of these types of hearings; instead, they traditionally relied exclusively upon the clerk of the court to properly document and schedule them. It appears that the clerk in this case mistakenly noted that the hearing would be held on July 15, a Saturday on which no hearings were held. Although hearings presumably occurred before this judge with the participation of assistant public defenders on July 11, Mr. Rowell's case was not addressed. As a result, Mr. Rowell remained in jail past July 11 and July 15.
Based on the facts presented, the district court following existing precedent, as required, held that existing Florida law pertaining to the impact rule precluded an award of damages for mental injury, and begrudgingly reversed that portion of the jury award. See id. at 770. The district court articulately expressed its misgivings and reservations with regard to applying the impact rule in the context of Rowell's action, but did so with the certification of a question to this Court to determine whether the rule should preclude recovery for emotional harm in the instant case. See id. at 770-72. This review followed.
We begin our analysis of the question presented with a brief review of the impact rule as it has been applied by the courts in this state. The rule requires that "before a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligence of another, the emotional distress suffered must flow from physical injuries sustained in an impact." R.J. v. Humana of Fla., Inc., 652 So.2d 360, 362 (Fla.1995) (quoting Reynolds v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 611 So.2d 1294, 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)). The impact rule has been traditionally applied primarily as a limitation to assure a tangible validity of claims for emotional or psychological harm. See R.J., 652 So.2d at 363
; Gonzalez v. Metro. Dade County Pub. Health Trust, 651 So.2d 673, 675 (Fla.1995); Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So.2d 415, 423 n. 5 (Fla.1992). Florida jurisprudence has generally reasoned that such assurance is necessary because, unlike physical injury, emotional harm may not readily align with traditional tort law damage principles. Our courts have explained that the existence of emotional harm is difficult to prove, resultant damages are not easily quantified, and the precise cause of such injury can be elusive. See R.J., 652 So.2d at 362. This Court has also theorized that without the impact rule, Florida courts may be inundated with litigation based solely on psychological injury. See Gonzalez, 651 So.2d at 675.
In recent years, this Court has had occasion to review the continued vitality of the impact rule, and has consistently reaffirmed that the rule serves as an important safeguard when applied under certain proper circumstances in our judicial system. See, e.g., R.J., 652 So.2d at 363
; Gonzalez, 651 So.2d at 674-75. The impact rule is not, however, an inflexible, unyielding rule of law, so sacred that it must be blindly followed without regard to context. If we were to ascribe such weight to the doctrine, the impact rule itself would exceed the parameters of its...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schmidt v. Coogan
...at 895.¶ 31 For example, a Florida court created a narrow exception to its impact rule for certain legal malpractice claims. Rowell v. Holt, 850 So.2d 474 (Fla.2003). The exception applies when a harm is grievous and foreseeable. See id. at 478–81. The court held that a plaintiff could reco......
-
T.L. v. F.M.
...)."[T]he citizens of a free society can conceive of no greater injury than the continued unjust deprivation of liberty." Rowell v. Holt, 850 So.2d 474, 480 (Fla. 2003). Because physical liberty is at stake, the value of imposing the minimum that due process would require for its deprivation......
-
Willis v. Gami Golden Glades, LLC.
...INVOLVED IN THIS CASE A "SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP" UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO THE IMPACT RULE WHICH MAY EXIST IN FLORIDA? ROWELL V. HOLT, 850 So.2d 474 (Fla. 2003); GRACEY V. EAKER, 837 So.2d 348 4. SHOULD THE IMPACT RULE BE ABOLISHED? Willis v. Gami Golden Glades, LLC, 881 So.2d 703, 705-06 (Fla. 3......
-
State v. JP
...overruled in part on other grounds, Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). Cf. Rowell v. Holt, 850 So.2d 474, 480 (Fla.2003) (describing petitioner's unjust pretrial detention as depriving him of "one's most basic freedoms — the freedom of movement, the right......
-
Negligence cases
...of countervailing policy concerns, have surmounted the policy rationale undergirding application of the impact rule.” Rowell v. Holt , 850 So.2d 474, 478 (Fla. 2003) (citation omitted): 1. Florida Dep’t of Corrections v. Abril , 969 So.2d 201, 206 (Fla. 2007) (observing that the court “has ......
-
Physical torts
...See Foshee v. Health Mgmt. Assocs. , 675 So.2d 957 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), rev. denied , 686 So.2d 578 (Fla. 1996); Rowell v. Holt , 850 So.2d 474, 482 (Fla. 2003). 8. Malicious Prosecution Compared: Although not always observed, the distinction between malicious prosecution and false imprison......
-
Defamation & privacy
...v. Brown , 66 So.2d 679, 681 (Fla. 1953); and invasion of privacy, see Cason v. Baskin , 20 So.2d 243, 251 (Fla. 1944); Rowell v. Holt , 850 So.2d 474, 478 (Fla. 2003). See also Restatement (Second) of Torts §§569, 570, 652H, cmt. b (1977); Hagan v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co ., 804 So.2d 1234, ......
-
So I finally understand the "impact rule" but why does It still exist?
...804 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 2001). (76) Gracey, 837 So. 2d 348, 358 (Fla. 2002). (77) Abril, 969 So. 2d 2001 (Fla. 2007). (78) Rowell v. Holt, 850 So. 2d 474, 478, n. 1 (Fla. (79) Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So. 2d 415, 422 (Fla. 1992), and Tanner v. Hartog, 696 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1997). But see Thomas v. O......