## Facts

- A six-year-old child, through her guardian, sued an adult defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The complaint alleged the defendant willfully and maliciously approached the child and told her that her mother “took a man away from his wife,” that “God is going to punish them,” and that a man was sleeping in her mother’s room, repeating that “God will punish them.”
- The statements were alleged to be knowingly false and made with disregard for the child’s feelings.
- The complaint alleged the defendant acted for the purpose of causing the child emotional stress, mental pain, and anguish.
- The trial court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations that a defendant intentionally and maliciously made knowingly false, distressing statements to a child to cause emotional suffering state a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress despite no physical injury.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the dismissal.
- The court held the amended complaint stated a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Florida’s general limitation on recovery for mental anguish without physical injury does not bar claims “founded purely in tort” where the wrongful act implies malice or malice may be imputed from extreme indifference to others’ rights.
- A defendant may be liable for intentionally causing severe emotional distress, without privilege, when the act is done for the purpose of causing distress or with knowledge that severe emotional distress is substantially certain to result.
- At the pleading stage, allegations of willful, malicious, knowingly false verbal conduct directed to cause emotional distress can be sufficient to state a claim even absent physical injury.

## Conclusion

The court held that a child’s allegations of deliberate, malicious, knowingly false statements intended to cause severe emotional distress stated a viable tort claim, and it reversed the trial court’s order dismissing the amended complaint.


Korbin v. Berlin, 177 So. 2d 551 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1965)