## Facts

- Freddie Laverne Gilliam and Robert Leo Bradley collided their automobiles on a public street; both vehicles left the roadway and entered J. Parks Stewart and Jane R. Stewart’s property.
- One vehicle struck a tree on the Stewarts’ property; the other struck the Stewarts’ house.
- Jane Stewart heard the collision and the impact with the house but was not physically touched or struck.
- Jane Stewart went outside to check for injuries, returned inside to use the telephone, and soon developed chest pains.
- Within hours, she was hospitalized with a myocardial infarction; her physician attributed it to fright or emotional shock from the collision and its aftermath.
- J. Parks Stewart sued the drivers individually and as administrator of Jane Stewart’s estate, alleging negligent driving caused emotional shock that in turn caused the heart attack.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants under Florida precedent requiring physical impact (absent wanton, willful, or malicious conduct).
- The district court of appeal reversed and certified a question asking whether a definite physical injury caused by fright is actionable without physical impact.

## Issues

1. Whether negligence liability exists for a definite, objective physical injury (heart attack) allegedly caused by emotional distress (fright) without any physical impact on the injured person.
2. Whether a district court of appeal may depart from and effectively overrule controlling Florida Supreme Court precedent, or must instead apply it and seek review.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court of appeal’s decision.
- The Court reinstated the trial court’s summary judgment for Gilliam and Bradley.
- The Court refused, on these facts, to recede from Florida’s impact rule.
- The Court held that only the Florida Supreme Court may overrule its own precedents; district courts must follow controlling decisions and, if warranted, certify the question for Supreme Court review.

## Legal Principles

- Under Florida’s impact rule (as applied here), negligence recovery for emotional distress and resulting injury is generally unavailable absent a contemporaneous physical impact, unless the defendant’s conduct is wanton, willful, or malicious.
- A “definite and objective” physical injury allegedly resulting from fright alone does not, by itself, remove the impact requirement.
- Florida’s appellate hierarchy requires district courts of appeal to apply controlling Florida Supreme Court precedent; changes to Supreme Court doctrine must come from the Supreme Court.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated summary judgment for the defendants, reaffirming that Florida’s impact rule barred negligence recovery for a heart attack allegedly caused by fright without physical impact and emphasizing that only the Florida Supreme Court may overrule its own prior decisions.


Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1974)