SCHOOL BD. OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY v. Trujillo
| Decision Date | 04 May 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D04-77, No. 3D04-300. |
| Citation | 906 So.2d 1109 |
| Parties | The SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Francisco and Lourdes TRUJILLO, individually as the natural parents of Christopher Trujillo, a minor, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Pyszka, Blackmon, Levy, Mowers & Kelley, and Jeffery A. Mowers, and Cindy J. Mishcon, Miami Lakes, for appellant.
Downs & Associates, Coral Gables; David W. Brill, Miami and Ralph O. Anderson, Hollywood, for appellees.
Before GERSTEN, FLETCHER and SUAREZ, JJ.
The School Board of Miami Dade County ("School Board"), appeals an adverse jury verdict contending that the impact rule bars recovery in this negligence action. Francisco and Lourdes Trujillo ("the Trujillos"), cross appeal.
The pertinent facts are as follows: On the first day of school, a Miami-Dade County school bus picked up the Trujillo's, four-year-old son, Christopher ("Christopher"), a special needs child. The bus arrived at 8:40 a.m., almost an hour later than his scheduled pick-up time. The bus driver then drove around the area and unsuccessfully attempted to pick up the other students and find Blue Lakes Elementary School.
Eventually, the driver obtained directions and arrived at the elementary school at 12:50 p.m. By this time, Christopher had urinated on himself at least once and appeared to be thirsty and dehydrated. Although Mr. Trujillo immediately took Christopher to a pediatrician, the pediatrician found no signs of abuse or physical injury. After the incident, however, Christopher began having nightmares, started wetting his bed and appeared to develop a fear of school buses. The Trujillos decided that Christopher would no longer ride the school bus.
The Trujillos sued the School Board alleging negligence, false imprisonment and a violation of Christopher's civil rights.1 The Trujillos sought damages for Christopher's pain and suffering and for the additional child care and transportation costs they incurred because Christopher no longer rode the school bus.
Before trial, the School Board obtained summary judgment on the false imprisonment claim. At trial, the School Board moved for directed verdict alleging the impact rule applied because of the lack of physical injury. The trial court denied the motion for directed verdict and the School Board's request to include an instruction on the impact rule. The jury found the School Board guilty of negligence and awarded damages.
The School Board appeals, asserting that the jury verdict should be reversed because there was no physical injury and therefore the impact rule bars recovery. The Trujillos contend that the impact rule is not applicable to this case or in the alternative, the physical injury elements have been met. The Trujillos also cross-appeal the adverse summary judgment contending that the elements of false imprisonment exist. We reverse the jury verdict and affirm on the cross appeal.
The impact rule provides that "before a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligence of another, the emotional distress suffered must flow from the physical injuries the plaintiff sustained in an impact." R.J. v. Humana, 652 So.2d 360 (Fla.1995); Champion v. Gray, 478 So.2d 17 (Fla.1985). Here the Trujillos seek purely emotional and/or psychological damages. Therefore, unless the emotional damages resulted from a physical injury, the impact rule precludes recovery.
Courts apply the impact rule to cases involving purely emotional damages for several reasons. Rowell v. Holt, 850 So.2d 474 (Fla.2003). First, emotional harm is difficult to prove as the source of the injury is often elusive. Rowell v. Holt, 850 So.2d at 478. Second, courts need to assure a tangible validity to claims involving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miami-Dade County v. Cardoso, 3D05-313.
...negligent training and supervision. See R.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., 652 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1995); School Bd. Of Miami-Dade County, Florida v. Trujillo, 906 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Ruttger Hotel Corp. v. Wagner, 691 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Jordan v. Equity Props. and Dev. Co.......
-
So I finally understand the "impact rule" but why does It still exist?
...a limited exception to the impact rule for a negligent HIV diagnosis. (64) In School Bd. of Miami-Dade County, Florida v. Trujillo, 906 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), rev. denied, 917 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 2005), the Third District also applied the seemingly draconian impact rule. It refused to......