Janie Doe 1 ex rel. Miranda v. Sinrod
117 So. 3d 786
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiffs are four children and their parents who allege teacher sexual abuse and sue the school board for negligence and emotional distress claims in 2006.
- In 2011, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint adding negligent supervision, negligent retention, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and a new Title IX claim.
- School board moved to dismiss parents' negligent infliction of emotional distress and children's Title IX claims, arguing lack of filial consortium, impact rule, and time-barred Title IX claims.
- Trial court dismissed parents' negligent infliction of emotional distress under the impact rule and dismissed children's Title IX claims for being untimely, non-relate-back, and failing pre-suit notice requirements.
- The court reviews de novo, holding no exception to the impact rule exists for the parents' NIED claims and affirming dismissal; holds Title IX claims relate back to the original complaint and are timely.
- Court reverses in part: children's Title IX claims relate back to the original pleading and are not time-barred; mails remand for further proceedings on related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the parents' negligent infliction of emotional distress claims survive? | Parents argue exceptions to the impact rule apply to their facts. | School board argues no exception applies; no physical impact or on-scene involvement. | NIED claims barred; no applicable exception recognized. |
| Do the children's Title IX claims relate back to the original complaint? | Title IX claims relate back as arising from the same conduct as the original negligence claims. | Relates back only if same conduct; otherwise new action; statute of limitations issues arise. | Yes; relate back; not time-barred. |
| Do tolling or pre-suit notice apply to the new Title IX claims? | Pre-suit notice complied by relation back; tolling statute not applicable. | Section 95.11(7) tolling not applicable; need strict notice requirements. | Tolling inapplicable; pre-suit notice satisfied by relation back. |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis v. Gami Golden Glades, LLC, 967 So.2d 846 (Fla. 2007) (describes narrow exceptions to the impact rule for emotional distress)
- Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. Cox, 481 So.2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (sets out impact rule framework for NIED)
- Rowell v. Holt, 850 So.2d 474 (Fla. 2003) (recognizes narrow exceptions to the impact rule)
- Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (relates back analysis for amendments; same conduct standard)
- Dailey v. Leshin, 792 So.2d 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (amendments may relate back if same general factual situation)
- Fabbiano v. Demings, 91 So.3d 893 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (subsequently-filed battery claim can relate back to original negligence claim)
- Associated Television & Communications, Inc. v. Dutch Village Mobile Homes of Melbourne, Ltd., 347 So.2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (same general factual situation allows relation back despite changed legal theory)
- Magee v. City of Jacksonville, 87 So.2d 589 (Fla.1956) (pre-suit notice considerations in relation back)
- City of Miami v. Cisneros, 662 So.2d 1272 (Fla.3d DCA 1995) (use relation back to determine pre-suit notice sufficiency)
- Doe v. Sinrod, 90 So.3d 852 (Fla.4th DCA 2012) (tolling considerations in similar context)