'Impact' rule doesn't bar emotional distress claims, rules Florida Supreme Court

The "impact" rule does not bar the personal injury claims of plaintiffs who suffered emotional distress but no physical harm as the result of the alleged negligence of defendants, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled in two cases.

Hotel carjacking

In the first case, the plaintiff

Although the carjacking did not occur on hotel property, the plaintiff claimed the hotel and its security service were negligent because a guard had allegedly directed her to the lot and assured her it was safe. The plaintiff alleged she suffered severe emotional distress because the carjacker held a gun to her head and frisked her for valuables in the course of the robbery.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the state's "impact" rule. Under the rule, an individual cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress in the absence of evidence that he suffered a "physical impact from an external force," or witnessed a traumatizing event and suffered mental distress "manifested by physical injury."