Facts
- A private security company hired Eric Owens as a security guard after training, screening, and licensure.
- A background check revealed a 2004 California misdemeanor disorderly conduct conviction; the company did not investigate the underlying conduct or the guard’s nondisclosure of the conviction.
- While assigned to patrol a residential community, Owens secretly used a cell phone to record a minor through her bedroom window while she was undressed.
- The minor discovered the recording attempt and alleged severe emotional and psychological harm.
- There was no evidence of any physical contact, physical impact, or physical injury.
Issues
- Whether Florida’s impact rule barred recovery of emotional distress and mental anguish damages in a negligence action when the plaintiff suffered no physical impact or physical injury and no recognized exception applied.
- Whether the evidence otherwise supported employer liability for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision.
Decision
- The appellate court reversed the final judgment entered on the jury verdict for the plaintiff.
- The court held the impact rule barred recovery because the plaintiff’s damages were purely emotional and did not flow from any physical impact or injury.
- The court concluded no recognized exception to the impact rule applied to these facts.
- The case was remanded with directions to enter judgment for the defendant, rendering other appellate arguments effectively moot.
Legal Principles
- Under Florida’s impact rule, emotional distress damages for negligence are recoverable only when the emotional distress flows from physical injuries sustained in a physical impact.
- Purely emotional or psychological injuries are not compensable in negligence absent a physical impact or a narrowly defined, recognized exception.
- Intermediate appellate courts may not create new exceptions to the impact rule; exceptions are limited to those established by the Florida Supreme Court.
- When the impact rule forecloses damages as a matter of law, a defendant is entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Conclusion
Because the plaintiff suffered no physical impact or injury and no established exception applied, Florida’s impact rule barred negligence-based recovery for emotional distress, requiring reversal of the plaintiff’s judgment and entry of judgment for the defendant.