Harrington v. Barnett Bank of Tampa

689 So. 2d 1169, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1823, 1997 WL 91366
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 5, 1997
DocketNo. 96-00656
StatusPublished

This text of 689 So. 2d 1169 (Harrington v. Barnett Bank of Tampa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harrington v. Barnett Bank of Tampa, 689 So. 2d 1169, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1823, 1997 WL 91366 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

BLUE, Judge.

Marie Harrington, as personal representative of her mother’s estate, appeals an order that dismissed her complaint against Barnett Bank of Tampa for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Although the trial court erred by applying Florida law to dismiss Harrington’s cause of action, we conclude that the claim would be barred even under Delaware’s version of the impact rule. See Mancino v. Webb, 274 A.2d 711 (Del.Super.1971). Accordingly, we affirm.

PARKER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mancino Ex Rel. Mancino v. Webb
274 A.2d 711 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
689 So. 2d 1169, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1823, 1997 WL 91366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrington-v-barnett-bank-of-tampa-fladistctapp-1997.