966 F. Supp. 2d 1312
M.D. Fla.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Mandy Seybold and John Seybold, with two children, allege injuries from a collision caused by Clapis at the Disney All-Star Movie Resort.
- Mandy Seybold was pinned between cars; a bystander moved the car, enabling her release; Disney allegedly provided no intervention.
- Plaintiffs sue Clapis for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) and Disney for alleged negligence linked to the incident.
- Disney filed a supplemented motion to dismiss Counts VII and VIII (NIED claims), and plaintiffs moved to strike Clapis’s affirmative defenses.
- Clapis answered with affirmative defenses; plaintiffs also sought to strike those defenses; the court heard the motions.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss and denied the motion to strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can Seybold children recover NIED without physical injury when impacted during the incident? | Children were impacted by an invisible force from the collision. | NIED requires physical injury or the impact rule principles to apply. | NIED claim allowed for children. |
| Can John Seybold recover NIED where no direct impact occurred to him during the incident? | He witnessed and assisted after the incident, alleging emotional distress. | No direct impact, thus no recovery under the impact rule. | NIED claim against Disney dismissed with prejudice. |
| Should Disney's motion to dismiss Counts VII and VIII be granted in part or denied in part? | Claims for children should proceed; John Seybold should survive disputes. | Limit or dismiss NIED claims lacking proper impact connection. | Granted as to John Seybold; denied as to Seybold children. |
| Should Clapis's affirmative defenses be struck? | Defenses are boilerplate and improper given facts. | Affirmative defenses may be relevant and should not be struck wholesale. | Motion to strike denied without prejudice; guidance to narrow defenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis v. Gami Golden Glades, LLC, 967 So.2d 846 (Fla. 2007) (two paths to recovery under the impact rule and its evolution)
- Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. Cox, 481 So.2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (early articulation of impact rule considerations)
- Hagan v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 804 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2001) (exceptions where impact rule does not preclude recovery)
- Tanner v. Hartog, 696 So.2d 705 (Fla. 1997) (negligent stillbirth and related considerations under impact rule)
- Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1992) (emphasizes limitations and scope of impact rule)
- Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2001) (federal perspective on related emotional distress standards)