WPC ּQ1@c0tergXi"#F&klEt+Ե։̳T}x-jG2j▹ľW Cn)Dqr!NHy{/Ό;jZޣ{6ջ8 DHፍ=?K,B5CYr"&?DŨ3<@g$$P#J'%>J)EHK5px:I Ö݅Yͳ$nRz+TLhs}6A@(<6X- Xe8q|0 D'9E8ąkM J+,e.$1*lx?'<BmUs8WqMEʣ!ɗlzrcҤ% Wv8~+oc'H"{n]Rܯ۬O:C! im/Ga~(qYVލ帬6 ;qO.^X#!UN %3 0G9U:^ w@4) m+XBe Brother HL-1440 series (Copy 2),,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX( $X&XXX,cAZ"Arial Regularpk,  1E23E45E67e8U96:B,yFiles3|x:U Haganremittura]lthoughHartog   !XXXX  _ InflictionofEmotional7Distess77Distress7/ImpactRule.  p InHaganv.CocaColaBottling  Co.,26Fla.L.Weekly812(Fla.December13,2001),theSupremeCourtofFlorida  reviewedaquestionofgreatpublicimportancecertifiedfromtheFifthDistrictCourtofAppeal:ShouldtheimpactrulebeabolishedoramendedinFlorida?TheCourt f answeredinthenegativeandquashedthedistrictcourtsdecision,inpart,holdingthatthe impactruledoesnotprecludeaclaimfordamagesforemotionaldistress,incertaincircumstances.InHagan,theplaintiffsdrankfromabottleofcocacola,whichtasted  j flat.Theplaintiffsexaminedthebottle,andsawwhatappearedtobeacondom.Bothwomenweredistressedandonebecamenauseated.Becauseoftheirconcerns,theywerebothtestedthenextdayforHIVAIDSandbothtestednegative.Sixmonthslater,bothweretestedagainandbothtestednegative.TheDefendantsbeverageanalysttestifiedattrialthathetoothoughtthatitwasacondom,butoncloserinspection,concludedthattheobjectwasamold.Aftertrial,thejuryawardedeachplaintiff$75,000,whichwasreducedto$25,000eachbythecourtonamotionforremittur.Bothsidesappealed.TheFifthDistrictconcludedthattheconflictingevidencepresentedattrialwassufficienttocreateajuryissueastowhethertheforeignmatterinthecokebottlewasinfactacondom.TheCourtspecificallyfound: [a]lthoughwehaveseriousdoubtsthattheplaintiffestablishedthattheobjectintheCokewasausedcondom,forpurposesofthisappeal,wewillassumethejurycouldhavemadethatfinding.CocaColaBottlingCo.v.Hagan,750So.2dat86.However,thedistrictcourt  reversedthejuryawardsandconcludedthatunderthecaselawconcerningthe impactrule,theplaintiffshadnotestablishedaclaimbecauseneitheronehadsufferedaphysicalinjury.̀  Afterextensiveanalysisoftheimpactrule,theSupremeCourtofFloridaconcludedmuchastheCourtrecognizedinTannerv.Hartog,696So.2d705(Fla. ,| 1997),thatthe impactruledoesnotapplywhereemotionaldamagesarea consequenceofconductthatitselfisafreestandingtortapartfromanyemotionalinjury.Tanner,696So.2dat708(quotingKush,616So.2dat415).Insodoing,the . courtheldthataplaintiffneednotprovetheexistenceofaphysicalinjuryinordertorecoverdamagesforemotionalinjuriescausedbytheconsumptionofacontaminatedfoodorbeverage.TheCourtstatedthat thosewhomarketfoodstuffsshouldforeseeandexpecttobearresponsibilityfortheemotionalandphysicalharmcausedbysomeoneconsumingafoodproductthatiscontaminatedbyaforeignsubstance.Hagan,26Fla.L.Weeklyat2315. B#"   Thisdecisionmaywellhaveapplication10to0132through234inotheremotionaldamagescasesthatwouldotherw454o456i64sebeprecludedbytheimpactrule.410others00with018899:XX:9.\ LF:\web page\case-law-updates\hagan.wpd\F:\webpage\case-law-updates\hagan.wpd/  9:#XXw #: