Zell v. Meek

In Zell v. Meek, 665 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1995), after witnessing her father's death as a result of a bomb that exploded in their unit, the plaintiff sued an apartment complex for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Although the plaintiff was not physically injured in the blast, the Court permitted recovery because she suffered physical manifestations of her mental anguish following the incident. In Zell the Court applied the "bystander rule," which permits recovery for emotional distress absent an actual impact if a plaintiff can demonstrate physical injuries resulting from the mental anguish of witnessing the death or injury of a loved one. The Court first adopted the bystander rule in Champion v. Gray, 478 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1985), where the plaintiff's wife died of shock after witnessing her daughter killed by a drunk driver. As the Court explained in Zell, "prior to Champion, Florida adhered strictly to a requirement that some physical impact to a claimant must be alleged and demonstrated before the claimant could recover damages for personal injury. This rule is referred to as the impact rule." Zell, 665 So. 2d at 1050. In Champion, however, the Court "retreated from our strict adherence to the impact rule and recognized for the first time a negligence action for physical injuries occurring without an actual impact." Id. at 1052. The Court permitted recovery in Zell because expert medical testimony linked the plaintiff's emotional distress to physical impairment of her stomach area, pain below her rib cage, an ulcer, blockage of her esophagus, joint pain, and insomnia.