In Tanner v. Hartog, 696 So. 2d 705, 708 (Fla. 1997), this Court again invoked the concept of foreseeability in holding that the impact rule should not preclude the parents of a child stillborn as a result of negligent medical care from recovering for the mental anguish sustained. See Tanner, 696 So. 2d at 708. The Court correctly reasoned that the impact rule should not be applied to produce the "outright denial of a claim for the mental pain and anguish which is so likely to be experienced by parents as a result of the birth of a stillborn child caused by the negligence of another." Id. The Tanner Court also carefully expressed its limited determination that the case constituted a "natural evolution of the common law," which was not intended to degrade the impact rule. Id.