## 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

1. 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.
2. 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.


G4S Secure Solutions USA, Inc. v. Golzar, 208 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)