04-0077 SCHOOL BD V. TRUJILLO

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2005 » 04-0077 SCHOOL BD V. TRUJILLO

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 04-0077 SCHOOL BD V. TRUJILLO

Case Date: 05/04/2005

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2005 THE SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. ** ** FRANCISCO and LOURDES TRUJILLO, individually as the natural ** parents of CHRISTOPHER TRUJILLO, a minor. Appellees. Opinion filed May 4, 2005. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge. Pyszka, Blackmon, Levy, Mowers & Kelley, and Jeffery A. Mowers, and Cindy J. Mishcon, for appellant. Downs & Associates; David W. Brill and Ralph O. Anderson, for appellees. Before GERSTEN, FLETCHER and SUAREZ, JJ. PER CURIAM. The School Board of Miami Dade County ("School Board"), appeals an adverse jury verdict contending that the impact rule CASE NOS. 3D04-77 3D04-300 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 02-20862 ** **

bars recovery in this negligence action. Trujillo ("the Trujillos"), cross appeal. The pertinent facts are as follows:

Francisco and Lourdes

On the first day of

school, a Miami-Dade County school bus picked up the Trujillo's, four-year-old son, Christopher ("Christopher"), a special needs child. The bus arrived at 8:40 a.m., almost an hour later than The bus driver then drove around attempted to pick up the other

his scheduled pick-up time. the area and unsuccessfully

students and find Blue Lakes Elementary School. Eventually, the driver obtained directions and arrived at the elementary school at 12:50 p.m. By this time, Christopher

had urinated on himself at least once and appeared to be thirsty and dehydrated. Although Mr. Trujillo immediately took

Christopher to a pediatrician, the pediatrician found no signs of abuse or physical injury. After the incident, however,

Christopher began having nightmares, started wetting his bed and appeared to develop a fear of school buses. The Trujillos

decided that Christopher would no longer ride the school bus. The Trujillos sued the School Board alleging negligence, false imprisonment and a violation of Christopher's civil

rights.1

The Trujillos sought damages for Christopher's pain and

suffering and for the additional child care and transportation
1

The Trujillos originally filed this action in Federal Court. The court entered summary judgment on the civil rights claim and remanded to the trial court for the state claims. 2

costs

they

incurred

because

Christopher

no

longer

rode

the

school bus. Before trial, the School Board obtained summary judgment on the false imprisonment claim. At trial, the School Board moved

for directed verdict alleging the impact rule applied because of the lack of physical injury. The trial court denied the motion for directed verdict and the School Board's request to include an instruction on the impact rule. The jury found the School

Board guilty of negligence and awarded damages. The School Board appeals, asserting that the jury verdict should be reversed because there was no physical injury and therefore the impact rule bars recovery. The Trujillos contend

that the impact rule is not applicable to this case or in the alternative, the physical injury elements have been met. The Trujillos also cross-appeal the adverse summary judgment

contending that the elements of false imprisonment exist. We reverse the jury verdict and affirm on the cross appeal. The impact rule provides that "before a plaintiff can

recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligence of another, the emotional distress suffered must flow from the physical injuries the plaintiff sustained in an impact." R.J. v. Humana, 652 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1995); Champion v. Gray, 478 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1985). Here the Trujillos seek purely emotional and/or Therefore, unless the emotional damages

psychological damages.

3

resulted recovery.

from

a

physical

injury,

the

impact

rule

precludes

Courts

apply

the

impact

rule

to

cases

involving

purely

emotional damages for several reasons. Rowell v. Holt, 850 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 2003). First, emotional harm is difficult to prove

as the source of the injury is often elusive. Rowell v. Holt, 850 So. 2d at 478. Second, courts need to assure a tangible

validity to claims involving emotional or psychological harm. R.J. v. Humana, 652 So. 2d at 362. If a physical impact or

injury is not required, courts will be inundated with fictitious or speculative claims and defendants' abilities to defend

themselves will be paralyzed. R.J. v. Humana, 652 So. 2d at 363. Here, neither the pediatrician nor the psychologist who

examined Christopher found any physical or emotional injuries. As Christopher is non-verbal, he was unable to confirm the

extent of his mental pain and suffering and was not available for cross-examination. emotional Without damages a physical be injury, difficult measuring if not

Christopher's impossible.

would

Because Christopher did not suffer a physical injury or impact and his emotional injuries are intangible, the impact rule applies and therefore precludes recovery of damages. See Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1974)(impact rule

precludes recovery for mental pain and suffering where victim

4

was frightened but suffered no physical contact as a result of car colliding into her house); Ruttger Hotel Corp. v. Wagner, 691 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(impact rule precluded

recovery where robber's actions in holding a gun to victim's head and pushing victims into a bathroom were insufficient to establish a physical injury). Next, we affirm on the cross appeal. that the School had Board or its that employees There is no evidence intended would to confine or

Christopher,

knowledge

confinement

result,

that Christopher was prevented from leaving the bus or held against his will. See Hernandez v. Metro-Dade County, 992 F. Supp. 1365 (S.D.Fla. 1997). Rather, the evidence shows that the This

bus driver picked Christopher up and thereafter got lost. hardly amounts to false imprisonment.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter a judgment not withstanding the verdict in favor of the School Board. We affirm on the cross appeal.

Reversed in part, affirmed in part.

5

Download 04-0077 SCHOOL BD V. TRUJILLO.pdf