Davis v. Sun First Nat. Bank of Orlando, 81-254
| Decision Date | 09 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-254,81-254 |
| Citation | 408 So.2d 608 |
| Parties | Opal DAVIS, Appellant, v. SUN FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ORLANDO, a National Association, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James M. Magee of Neduchal & Magee, Orlando, for appellant.
Ashby L. Camp of Cooper & Rissman, P. A., Orlando, for appellee.
Appellant Opal Davis, a bank teller who was the victim of a "hold-up," sued the bank robber, charging intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault and battery. She also sued her employer, appellee Sun First National Bank of Orlando, charging negligence in the construction and operation of its bank in failing to provide adequate security. The bank filed a motion to dismiss the negligence count on the ground that: (1) appellant was injured during the scope and course of her employment and thus the action was barred by the provisions of the Florida Workers' Compensation Act; (2) the complaint failed to allege a duty to protect her from the intervening acts of third persons; (3) the acts complained of lacked the requisite physical contact necessary to sustain an action for personal injury under a negligence theory; and (4) the complaint failed to allege ultimate facts showing causation. The motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. We AFFIRM.
The first question we consider is whether an employee has a common law action for the alleged negligence of an employer causing an injury which was not an "injury arising out of the employment," as defined in Florida Statute 440.02(18), and hence is not compensable under chapter 440, the Florida Workers' Compensation Law.
Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1979), provides for the exclusiveness of liability of an employer as follows:
The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death, except that if an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this chapter, an injured employee or the legal representative thereof in case death results from the injury, may elect to claim compensation under this chapter or to maintain an action at law or in admiralty for damages on account of such injury or death. (emphasis added)
The term "injury" is defined as personal injury or death by accident arising out of and in the course of employment. § 440.02(6), Fla.Stat. (1979). Thus, to be compensable under the act, the injury must not only arise out of and in the course of employment but must also be "by accident."
Section 440.02(18), Florida Statutes (1979) defines "accident" as follows:
'Accident' means only an unexpected or unusual event or result, happening suddenly. A mental or nervous injury due to fright or excitement only ... shall be deemed not to be an injury by accident arising out of the employment. (emphasis added)
Appellant argues that a mental or nervous injury is specifically excluded as an "injury" under the Workers' Compensation Act, and therefore, there is no prohibition against her suing her employer under a theory of negligent infliction of nervous distress. We do not think it is necessary to consider whether this rather ingenious construction of the statute has merit. So far, Florida has not recognized the cause of action of negligent infliction of mental distress absent "impact." We reject appellant's claim that the act of the robber in handing her the "hold up" note constituted "physical impact." See Steiner and Munach v. Williams, 334 So.2d 39 (Fla.3d DCA 1976) (); Saltmarsh v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exchange, 344 So.2d 862 (Fla.3d DCA 1977) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.
...v. Biscayne Recreation Dev. Co., 528 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So.2d 880 (Fla.1988); Davis v. Sun First Nat'l Bank, 408 So.2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), review denied, 413 So.2d 875 (Fla.1982); see Harkcom, 104 Ill.App.3d at 780, 60 Ill.Dec. at 494, 433 N.E.2d at I woul......
-
Willis v. Gami Golden Glades, LLC.
...in simple negligence against the store owner." Id. at 977 (emphasis supplied). Similarly, the facts of Davis v. Sun First National Bank of Orlando, 408 So.2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), also undoubtedly did not involve an impact or touching of the plaintiff. The Davis decision involved a bank ......
-
Bondu v. Gurvich, s. 81-968
...the plaintiff can state a cause of action, Greenburg v. Johnston, 367 So.2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); cf. Davis v. Sun First Nat'l Bank of Orlando, 408 So.2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (dicta), rev. denied, 413 So.2d 875 (Fla.1982), if the proffered amendment pleads a cause of action different t......
-
Sullivan v. Atlantic Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n.
...McDaniel v. Sheffield, 431 So.2d 230 (Fla.1st DCA), petition for rev. denied, 440 So.2d 352 (Fla.1983); Davis v. Sun First National Bank of Orlando, 408 So.2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), petition for rev. denied, 413 LSo.2d 875 (Fla.1982) (upholding dismissal of negligence claim against Bank b......