Will Allison Opfer qualify for the exception to the impact rule? Opfer was video chatting with her sister Meredith Biktima when Opfer witnessed Robert Slarvig spill coffee on Biktima. Upon seeing the coffee cause severe injuries to Biktima, Opfer sustained a heart attack.
BRIEF ANSWER Opfer is likely to qualify for the exception to the impact rule. To qualify for the exception to the impact rule, the plaintiff, Opfer, must show that she suffered a discernable injury that results from psychological trauma, have a close relationship with the injured third party, and must have been directly involved in the incident that harmed the third party. As our client, Opfer, sustained a heart attack, is the sister of the injured third party, heard …show more content…
Champion v. Gray, 478 So. 2d 17, 20 (Fla. 1985), overruled in part by Zell v. Meek, 665 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1995). In Champion, the plaintiff’s decedent heard the impact of the car crashing into her daughter and ran to the scene of the incident. Id. at 18. Upon seeing her daughter’s body, the plaintiff’s decedent was so overcome with shock and grief that she died. Id. The Champion court described the outer limits of involvement as a person who was not at the scene of the incident, but witnessed the injured third party at the hospital after a brief time. Id at 20. The Champion court did not decide whether that scenario would constitute involvement. Id. In making its decision, the Champion court discussed the policy behind the impact rule. Id. at 18. The impact rule arose out of the need for restricting fraudulent claims and limiting claims for indefinable and immeasurable injuries. Id. at 20. The Champion court also noted that the policy of the state was to compensate for injuries stemming from the consequence of physical injuries. Id. The Champion court stated the need for an exception to the impact rule as psychological trauma stemming from a negligent injury imposed on a close family member within the perception of the injured plaintiff is too great to require direct physical contact for a valid cause of action. Id. at 18-19. The …show more content…
Ledford v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 540, 543 (S.D. Fla. 1987). In Ledford, the plaintiff watched a news report showing the aftermath of a plane crash. Id. at 541. The plaintiff surmised that his wife was on the plane that crashed. Id. The Ledford court noted that to be involved, a person must see or hear the incident as it occurred or witness the injury to the third party within a short time of the incident occurring. Id. at 543. The Ledford court reasoned the plaintiff could not be involved as the plaintiff only observed the aftermath of the incident, did not see or hear the incident as it occurred, and did not see the injured third party, his wife. Id. The Ledford court held he was not involved.
BRIEF ANSWER Opfer is likely to qualify for the exception to the impact rule. To qualify for the exception to the impact rule, the plaintiff, Opfer, must show that she suffered a discernable injury that results from psychological trauma, have a close relationship with the injured third party, and must have been directly involved in the incident that harmed the third party. As our client, Opfer, sustained a heart attack, is the sister of the injured third party, heard …show more content…
Champion v. Gray, 478 So. 2d 17, 20 (Fla. 1985), overruled in part by Zell v. Meek, 665 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1995). In Champion, the plaintiff’s decedent heard the impact of the car crashing into her daughter and ran to the scene of the incident. Id. at 18. Upon seeing her daughter’s body, the plaintiff’s decedent was so overcome with shock and grief that she died. Id. The Champion court described the outer limits of involvement as a person who was not at the scene of the incident, but witnessed the injured third party at the hospital after a brief time. Id at 20. The Champion court did not decide whether that scenario would constitute involvement. Id. In making its decision, the Champion court discussed the policy behind the impact rule. Id. at 18. The impact rule arose out of the need for restricting fraudulent claims and limiting claims for indefinable and immeasurable injuries. Id. at 20. The Champion court also noted that the policy of the state was to compensate for injuries stemming from the consequence of physical injuries. Id. The Champion court stated the need for an exception to the impact rule as psychological trauma stemming from a negligent injury imposed on a close family member within the perception of the injured plaintiff is too great to require direct physical contact for a valid cause of action. Id. at 18-19. The …show more content…
Ledford v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 540, 543 (S.D. Fla. 1987). In Ledford, the plaintiff watched a news report showing the aftermath of a plane crash. Id. at 541. The plaintiff surmised that his wife was on the plane that crashed. Id. The Ledford court noted that to be involved, a person must see or hear the incident as it occurred or witness the injury to the third party within a short time of the incident occurring. Id. at 543. The Ledford court reasoned the plaintiff could not be involved as the plaintiff only observed the aftermath of the incident, did not see or hear the incident as it occurred, and did not see the injured third party, his wife. Id. The Ledford court held he was not involved.