You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Crenshaw v. SARASOTA CTY. PUB. HOSP.

Citations: 466 So. 2d 427; 10 Fla. L. Weekly 880Docket: 81-2020

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 2, 1985; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves an appeal by a plaintiff against the Sarasota County Hospital Board and an individual following the stillbirth of her child and the subsequent mishandling of the child's body, which was found mutilated in a washing machine. The plaintiff sought damages for emotional distress, but the defendants contended that Florida law mandates the presence of a physical impact for such claims. The proceedings were paused pending the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Champion v. Gray, which reaffirmed the necessity of a physical injury accompanying psychological trauma for recovery. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed as she neither witnessed the incident nor suffered a discernible physical injury. Furthermore, her attempt to claim damages for emotional distress resulting from negligent breach of contract was denied, as it required an independent willful tort, which was not demonstrated. The court's dismissal of her amended complaint was affirmed, underscoring the necessity of meeting the established legal standards for emotional distress claims under Florida law.

Legal Issues Addressed

Emotional Distress and the Impact Rule

Application: The court applied the Impact Rule, requiring a demonstrable physical injury to accompany psychological trauma, to determine that the plaintiff's emotional distress did not constitute a valid claim as she did not witness the incident nor suffer physical harm.

Reasoning: However, it clarified that a demonstrable physical injury must accompany the psychological harm.

Recovery for Emotional Distress in Negligent Breach of Contract

Application: The court held that recovery for mental distress due to negligent breach of contract requires the presence of an independent willful tort, which was not established in this case.

Reasoning: Crenshaw attempted to recover damages based on the negligent breach of contract but was informed that such recovery for mental distress requires an independent willful tort.