Woodman v. Dever, II-208
| Decision Date | 02 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. II-208,II-208 |
| Citation | 367 So.2d 1061 |
| Parties | Kathryn WOODMAN, Individually, and Kathryn Woodman, as guardian and next friend of Jennifer Woodman, Appellant, v. Ed DEVER, as owner of Sea Lodge Motel, Gerald and Barbara Lawson, as lessees of the Sea Lodge Motel, and Auto-Owners Insurance Company, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Elizabeth J. Gulden of Billings, Frederick, Wooten & Honeywell, Orlando, for appellant.
J. Robert Hughes of Barron, Redding, Boggs & Hughes, Panama City, for appellees.
Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of Counts III and IV of appellant's complaint which sought money damages for the mental pain and emotional stress suffered by her daughter. We affirm.
Appellant filed a complaint against appellees seeking money damages for physical and mental injuries sustained by appellant and mental injuries sustained by her minor daughter, Jennifer. The complaint alleges that appellant and her two daughters were registered in appellees' motel on July 24, 1975; that appellant locked the doors to the room before she and her daughters went to sleep; that an unknown intruder entered the room where appellant and her daughters were sleeping and sexually assaulted and robbed appellant; that appellees were negligent in their failure to provide an adequate security system for appellant's protection. Count III of the complaint alleges that Jennifer was a witness to the act of violence on her mother, and seeks damages for Jennifer's emotional distress and mental pain and suffering as a result of the witnessing of this act. In Count IV of the complaint, appellant, as mother of Jennifer, seeks damages for medical expenses incurred in the treatment of Jennifer's psychological injury, which resulted from the witnessing of her mother's assault. Appellees moved to dismiss the two counts asserting that because there were no allegations therein of physical impact, appellant may not recover for emotional distress or mental pain and suffering. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Review of this case involves consideration of a judicially established precedent in Florida, often referred to as the impact rule. That rule has established that no recovery can be had for injuries resulting from mental pain and suffering or emotional disturbance unaccompanied by any physical impact in the absence of wantonness, willfulness or malice. Appellant urges this Court to recede from that doctrine in this case. To support that proposition, appellant relies on Stewart v. Gilliam, 271 So.2d 466 (Fla. 4 DCA 1972), in which the Fourth District rejected the impact rule as being "at variance with modern-day needs and with concepts of justice and fair...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amodio v. Cunningham
...Funeral Homes Co., 250 Ala. 295, 34 So.2d 203; Slovensky v. Birmingham News Co., 358 So.2d 474 (Ala.Civ.App.); Woodman v. Dever, 367 So.2d 1061 (Fla.App.); Southern Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 146 Ga. 243, 91 S.E. 28; Cotton States Mutual Ins. Co. v. Crosby, 149 Ga.App. 450, 254 S.E.2d 485; Hayward......
-
Gottshall v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
...(negligent failure to inform next of kin about death of loved one is noncompensable absent physical impact); Woodman v. Dever, 367 So.2d 1061 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979) (a child who witnessed robbery and sexual assault of mother was denied recovery because there was no physical impact on the ch......
-
Selfe v. Smith
...E. g., Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So.2d 593 (Fla. 1974); Herlong Aviation, Inc. v. Johnson, 291 So.2d 603 (Fla.1974); Woodman v. Dever, 367 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Ellington v. United States, 404 F.Supp. 1165 (M.D.Fla.1975). That fact, coupled with the principle that a parent's recover......
-
Peacock v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
...to their marriage, and loss of consortium. The allegations do not satisfy either the physical impact requirement of Woodman v. Dever, 367 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) or standards for the extraordinarily outrageous conduct as described in Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sheehan, 373 So.2d 956, 9......