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
- 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.
- 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.