Kennedy v. Byas, 1D03-3234.
Decision Date | 04 March 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 1D03-3234.,1D03-3234. |
Citation | 867 So.2d 1195 |
Parties | Robert Bruns KENNEDY, Petitioner, v. Dr. Albert BYAS, d/b/a Agape Animal Hospital, Respondent. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Clayton R. Syfrett, of Syfrett & Kykes Law Offices, P.A., Panama City, for petitioner.
B. Richard Young and Elizabeth A. Parsons, of Young, Bill, Fugett & Roumbos, P.A., Pensacola, for respondent.
Robert Kennedy, the plaintiff in the trial court, has filed a petition for Writ of Certiorari asking us to quash an order granting the respondent's motion to transfer petitioner's action from circuit court to county court. Petitioner contends that the circuit judge's order determining that he could not collect emotional distress damages based on veterinary malpractice in the treatment of his basset hound constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law. We disagree, deny the petition, and certify conflict with the Third District Court of Appeal's decisions in Johnson v. Wander, 592 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), and Knowles Animal Hosp., Inc. v. Wills, 360 So.2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
The petitioner filed a two count complaint against his veterinarian, Dr. Byas, seeking damages for veterinary malpractice in the treatment of his basset hound. In count I, petitioner alleged negligence and emotional distress; in count II, the petitioner alleged fraud. Dr. Byas filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The defense motion for partial summary judgment was granted with respect to Kennedy's claim for emotional distress damages, finding that, even if all allegations were proven, the petitioner could not recover for emotional distress, mental pain and suffering, or mental anguish. The court denied the motion with respect to the fraud claim.
After discovery, Dr. Byas filed a motion to transfer venue from circuit court to county court, asserting that discovery had revealed that without the claim of damages for emotional distress the only damages remaining in litigation were $350 alleged as the value of the basset hound and $50 for the amount of the bill over which an allegation of fraud had been raised.1 The circuit court entered an order granting Dr. Byas' motion to transfer because the jurisdictional limits of the circuit court had not been satisfied.
An order of the circuit court transferring all further jurisdiction from the circuit court to the county court is reviewable by petition for certiorari because absent this remedy, petitioner would be deprived of any right of review of the circuit court's order. See Easley v. Garden Sanctuary, 120 So.2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
. We determine, however, that petitioner has failed to demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law.
Johnson v. Wander, 592 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), is a veterinary malpractice case where, as here, the trial court entered partial summary judgment on the claims for damages for emotional distress and subsequently granted a motion to change the case from circuit court to county court due to the lower jurisdictional amount sought in the claims remaining. In that case, the Third District held that a jury question was presented on the issues of gross negligence and mental pain and suffering as claimed by the dog's owner and the trial court improperly transferred the case to county court as being a claim for less than the circuit court jurisdictional amount. In Knowles Animal Hosp., Inc. v. Wills, 360 So.2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), the Third District specifically held that a dog owner was entitled to collect for emotional damages in a veterinary malpractice case. We determine that the "impact rule" precludes such recovery. See Zell v. Meek, 665 So.2d 1048 (Fla.1995)
.
The "impact rule" requires some physical impact prior to the recovery of damages for emotional distress. Id. at 1050. Petitioner requests that we abandon the "impact rule" in this case and allow the recovery for emotional distress in cases involving veterinary malpractice. In Welker v. S. Baptist Hosp. of Fla., Inc., 864 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), this court recognized that the impact rule is not an unyielding inflexible rule of law and in some cases damages for emotional distress may be recovered absent physical impact. We identified those types of cases where an exception to the impact rule was likely to be applied:
One area that was identified as having the gravity of emotional injury and lack of countervailing policy concerns to justify exceptions to the impact rule involves familial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Strickland v. Kathryn
...(2004); Naples v. Miller, 2009 WL 1163504, at *2–4 (Del.Super.Ct. Apr. 30, 2009), aff'd,992 A.2d 1237 (Del.2010); Kennedy v. Byas, 867 So.2d 1195, 1198 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2004); Gill v. Brown, 107 Idaho 1137, 695 P.2d 1276, 1277 (Ct.App.1985); Jankoski v. Preiser Animal Hosp., Ltd., 157 Ill.A......
-
Vega v. United States
...before damages for emotional distressare recoverable. Pickford v. Masion, 124 Wash. App. 257 (Div. 2 2004), citing Kennedy v. Byas, 867 So.2d 1195, 1197-98 (Fla.2004) (Florida district court denied emotional distress damages where the claim involved only negligence, not malicious behavior).......
-
Scheele v. Dustin
...84 Conn.App. 395, 853 A.2d 621, 626 (2004) (noting Connecticut General Statute § 22-350 defines dogs as property); Kennedy v. Byas, 867 So.2d 1195, 1197 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2004) ( “While a dog may be considered by many to be a member of the family, under Florida law animals are considered to ......
-
Pickford v. Masion
...LaPorte and disallowed emotional distress damages where the claim involved only negligence, not malicious behavior. Kennedy v. Byas, 867 So.2d 1195, 1197-98 (Fla.2004). And Richardson recognized the claim only where the defendant's conduct is extreme or outrageous and causes severe emotiona......
-
Negligence cases
...exception to the “impact rule” to allow recovery for emotional distress damages for veterinary malpractice. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Byas , 867 So.2d 1195, 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), rev. dismissed , 879 So.2d 622 (Fla. 2004) (recognizing that “pet owners may consider pets as part of their fami......
-
So I finally understand the "impact rule" but why does It still exist?
...impact rule carved out in Tanner, based on the age of the fetus lost due to the alleged negligent stillbirth). (80) See Kennedy v. Byas, 867 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 1st D.C.A.), rev. dismissed, 879 So. 2d 622 (Fla. (81) Rivers v. Grimsley Oil Co., Inc., 842 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 2d D.C.A.), rev. denie......
-
Animal-related Legal Disputes: Litigation, Adr, and Court Appointments
...City Civ. Ct. 1980); La Porte v. Associated Independents, Inc., 163 So.2d 267 (Fla. 1964); Kennedy v. By as d/b/a Agape Animal Hospital, 867 So.2d 1195 (Fla.App. 2004); Liotta v. Segur, 36 Conn.L.Rptr. 621 (Conn. Super. 2004) (unreported); Burgess v. Taylor, 44 S.W.3d 806 (Ky. 2001); Ammon ......