RICHARD YUSK AND GEORGIA YUSK, HUSBAND AND WIFE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS OF CHAD YUSK, A MINOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES E. WRIGHT AND THE ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that while a common judgment for parents was not reversible error, failing to enter a separate judgment for a minor child was reversible error.
Plaintiffs sued for injuries from an automobile accident. The trial court found defendants liable but attributed 25% negligence to Mrs. Yusk, awarding…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Imputed Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Chief Judge.
Plaintiffs, Richard and Georgia Yusk, individually, and as parents and next friends of their son, Chad Yusk, sued to recover for injuries sustained by Mrs. Yusk and their son who were injured in an automobile accident. After a nonjury trial the court found the defendants liable but held Mrs. Yusk twenty-five percent negligent. Plaintiffs’ counsel requested the court to enter separate awards for each plaintiff. However, the court awarded the plaintiffs a single judgment of $17,949.74.
The one contention by the Yusks that has merit concerns the court’s failure to enter a separate judgment for Mr. and Mrs. Yusk on behalf of their son Chad, age 10. While the court should have entered a separate judgment on each of the plaintiffs’ claims, it was not reversible error in this case for the court to enter a common judgment for . Mr. and Mrs. Yusk. It was reversible error, however, for the court to have failed to enter a separate judgment for the Yusks on behalf of their minor son as they requested. Tucker v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., 343 So. 2d 1357 (Fla.14st DCA 1977). The separate judgment is essential because the sum awarded on the minor’s behalf must be accounted for by the parents. See Cicero v. Paradis, 184 So. 2d 212 (Fla.2d DCA 1966). Additionally, the minor’s award cannot be reduced by the twenty-five percent comparative negligence of Mrs. Yusk since a driver’s negligence cannot be imputed to a passenger where, as here, the passenger had no authority or control over the car or driver. Bessett v. Hackett, 66 So. 2d 694 (Fla.1953); Singletary v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 376 So. 2d 1191 (Fla.2d DCA 1979).
We have examined the other contentions raised by the plaintiffs, and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we vacate the final judgment, and remand for entry of a judgment to comport with this opinion.
GRIMES and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kane v. Portwood, 573 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…arly 1970s, this court has never expressly approved this theory.5 This court’s consideration of the joint enterprise theory has been limited to situations in which the doctrine was not applicable under the facts of the case at issue. Yusk v. Wright, 410 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Singletary v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 376 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Sisam v. Brantley, 366 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1979). While we hold that the facts of this case do not permit the a…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Bohanan, 66 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1953)
- Tucker v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. OF Shelby, 343 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Cicero v. Paradis, 184 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Singletary v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 376 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)