OK....time for this weekend's legal case for discussion. Enough of the Beantown Hockey Massacre.....this is one for the ages (from the same court that sided with Al Gore in the recount controversy): <g>
Linda Hagan et al. vs. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. et al.; Supreme Court of Florida; Dec. 13, 2001; No. SC00-287.
Coke case expands ability of claimants to sue for fear of injury in Florida
by MICHAEL BRADFORD
• Published on Jan. 07, 2002
TALLAHASSEE, Fla.-A Florida Supreme Court decision in a case in which two women claimed they drank from a soft drink bottle they believed contained a used condom broadens a state law under which plaintiffs, in order to collect damages, must show that emotional distress is related to a physical injury.
The 4-1 ruling issued Dec. 13 is important because it establishes that ingestion is an "impact" under Florida's so-called "impact rule," which requires that a stress claim be related to a physical injury. The judges point out in the decision that, while "there have been a variety of other ingestion cases in Florida," none has resolved the issue of whether damages for emotional distress are barred when there are no accompanying physical injuries.
It remains unclear how significant the ruling will be, according to Russell S. Bohn, a plaintiffs attorney in the case who is with the firm of Caruso, Burlington, Bohn & Compiani in West Palm Beach, Fla. Mr. Bohn said that, while it will be easier for plaintiffs to claim emotional damages from an ingested substance, "the question is, what is it worth?"
Verdicts and settlements in such cases generally are for relatively small amounts, Mr. Bohn said. "Whether there will be any real expense to the insurance industry, I don't know. On the other hand, it may increase the number of suits that are filed," he said.
The recent state Supreme Court case involves two sisters' claims that in 1992 they "drank from a bottle of Coke which they both agreed tasted flat," according to the Supreme Court decision. Holding the bottle up to a light, they observed what appeared to be a used condom inside, the court papers note.
Both women subsequently tested negative for HIV. They claimed emotional distress in their suit against Coca-Cola Bottling Co., whose scientist testified that the object in the bottle was a type of mold that can grow in beverages that have lost their carbonation.
Despite the absence of any physical injury, a trial court jury awarded $75,000 to each sister and $20,000 to the husband of one of the women. The court later reduced the amounts to $25,000 each to the women and $8,000 to the husband. Both sides appealed the verdict.
The appeals court reversed the awards, ruling that, under the impact rule, the sisters "had not established a claim, because neither woman had suffered a physical injury."
Mr. Bohn said he thought that earlier rulings established that ingestion constituted an impact, so he chose not to argue that point but instead to challenge the appeals court ruling that the women should not recover damages because they had not suffered an injury.
"For something that maximally disgusting, for something that horrendous, you shouldn't have to prove a physical injury. That was basically my argument," Mr. Bohn said.
In its decision, the Supreme Court said it made clear in earlier cases that "those who market foodstuffs should foresee and expect to bear responsibility for the emotional and physical harm caused by someone consuming a food product that is contaminated by a foreign substance." And, in the case at hand, because the court ruled that ingestion of a contaminated beverage does constitute an impact, the impact rule was found not to bar the plaintiffs' claims.
The high court remanded the case to the district court.
In a dissent, Justice Major B. Harding pointed out that the plaintiffs "failed to establish that the condom and the material in the Coke were contaminated with HIV. Nor did they show that it was likely and probable that the virus was present." Absent those and other proofs, "a plaintiff's fear of contracting AIDS is unreasonable as a matter of law and not a legally compensable injury," Justice Harding wrote.
Justice Harding stated in his dissent that allowing such suits without the proofs he mentioned "could lead to an explosion of frivolous litigation, opening, as some courts say, a `Pandora's Box' of AIDS phobia claims."
businessinsurance.com (requires free trial registration) |
