I SAW HER STANDING THERE
227
seem to be laying it in the grave
.
22
More recently, in 2011, the First District recently revisited the definition of
significant physical injury. In
Elliott v. Elliott
, it held that the injuries claimed
by the plaintiff, namely “headaches, diabetes, sleep apnea, stress, insom-
nia, anxiety, loss of appetite, hair loss, and bowel trouble,” were not the
kinds of significant physical injuries stemming for psychic trauma that should
be granted monetary recovery
.
23
Don’t Pass Me By: A Panoply of Exceptions
The impact doctrine has evolved from a necessary rule to avoid outrageous
speculation by emotionally charged jurors, to a confusing quagmire of ju-
risprudence that requires attorneys to make speculative assessments as
to how the court will view their claim. Indeed, since
Champion
, the Florida
Supreme Court has continued to stray further and further from the impact
rule’s foundation and has recognized numerous exceptions to it. In
Rowell
v. Holt
,
24
the Court held that purely emotional distress stemming from le-
gal malpractice, which results in prolonged imprisonment, is not subject to
the impact rule. In
Gracey v. Eaker
,
25
it held that breaches of “a statutory
duty of confidentiality” by psychotherapists are not subject to the impact
rule; and in
Hagan v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
,
26
it held that, when a plaintiff
ingests contaminated food, recovery is not barred by the impact rule.
22
.
23
.
24
.
25
.
26
.
1...,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226 228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,...304