Herlong Aviation, Inc. v. Johnson

291 So. 2d 603
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 10, 1974
Docket43431
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 291 So. 2d 603 (Herlong Aviation, Inc. v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Herlong Aviation, Inc. v. Johnson, 291 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1974).

Opinion

291 So.2d 603 (1974)

HERLONG AVIATION, INC., Petitioner,
v.
Ray W. JOHNSON and Rita L. Johnson, His Wife, Respondents.

No. 43431.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January 10, 1974.
Rehearing Denied March 15, 1974.

*604 Robert E. Banker and Edward M. Waller, Jr., of Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey, Kinney & Boggs, Tampa, and Smith, Hulsey, Schwalbe, Spraker & Nichols, Jacksonville, for petitioner.

Ronald H. Schnell of Carr & Schnell, St. Petersburg, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, reported at 271 So.2d 226. The District Court has certified its decision as one passing on a question of great public interest, to-wit:

"Can a plaintiff recover for mental pain and anguish in the absence of impact?"

The District Court, in reversing summary judgment for defendants and reinstating plaintiff's complaint, answered the certified question in the affirmative, but recognized that such result was at variance with the controlling precedent in Florida.

The issue presented on certification has been fully considered by this Court and answered in the negative in Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So.2d 593. We are therefore compelled to quash the decision of the District Court insofar as it permits a plaintiff to recover for mental pain and anguish in the absence of impact. Specifically, the reinstatement by the District Court of Count III of the plaintiff's complaint was error.

In all other respects, the decision below is approved, and the cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C.J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.

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

Related

Lloyd Ex Rel. Lloyd v. North Broward Hosp. Dist.
570 So. 2d 984 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Burns v. Holiday Travels, Inc.
459 So. 2d 666 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1984)
CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIV., GM CORP. v. Brown
428 So. 2d 301 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Whitney v. Renfreo
1 Fla. Supp. 2d 134 (Marion County Circuit Court, 1982)
Moores v. Lucas
405 So. 2d 1022 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Selfe v. Smith
397 So. 2d 348 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Shively v. Florida Power & Light Co.
47 Fla. Supp. 118 (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, 1978)
Solomon v. Warren
540 F.2d 777 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)
Brooks v. South Broward Hosp. Dist.
325 So. 2d 479 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Pazo v. Upjohn Company
310 So. 2d 30 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
291 So. 2d 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herlong-aviation-inc-v-johnson-fla-1974.