TZIPPORA KALISCH, APPELLANT,
v.
BERNARD KALISCH, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court reversed dismissal of wife's negligence action against husband for boating accident injuries, holding that the Florida Supreme Court's abrogation of interspousal immunity in Waite v. Waite applies retroactively to claims accruing before the decision.
The Florida Supreme Court's abrogation of interspousal immunity in Waite v. Waite applies retroactively to negligence claims accruing before the decision was issued.
[1] A decision of a court of last resort abrogating a common law doctrine applies retroactively to claims accruing before the decision unless the opinion explicitly limits it…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“As a general rule, a decision of a court of last resort which overrules a prior decision is retrospective as well as prospective in its application unless declared by the opinion to have prospective effect only.”
Court citing Melendez v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co. to establish the standard for retroactive application of overruling decisions.
Tzippora Kalisch filed a negligence action against her husband Bernard for injuries sustained in a December 1991 boating accident where he was operati…
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 Interspousal Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
On September 2, 1993, Tzippora Kalisch filed a negligence action against Bernard Kalisch, her husband, to recover damages for injuries she suffered in a December 1991 boating accident in which her husband was driving the boat. He filed a dismissal motion based on the interspousal immunity doctrine. The court declined to apply Waite v. Waite, 618 So. 2d 1360 (Fla.1993), which abrogated the doctrine, because Mrs. Kalisch’s cause of action accrued before the May 27,1993 Waite decision. The trial court ruled in favor of Mr. Kalisch. This appeal ensued. We reverse.
In Waite, 618 So. 2d at 1361, the Florida Supreme Court overruled prior contrary case law and held that the doctrine was no longer a part of Florida’s common law. “As a general rule, a decision of a court of last resort which overrules a prior decision is retrospective as well as prospective in its application unless declared by the opinion to have prospective effect only.” Melendez v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 515 So. 2d 735, 736 (Fla.1987). E.g., Ryter v. Brennan, 291 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 297 So. 2d 836 (Fla.1974); Ingerson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 272 So. 2d 862 (Fla. Ed DCA 1973). A review of the Waite decision reveals that the supreme court did not limit its application.
Therefore, we hold that Mrs. Kalisch’s action may proceed in accordance with the supreme court’s abrogation of the interspousal immunity doctrine. Accord Sleeter v. Collins, 621 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
Accordingly, the order is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hogan v. Tavzel, 660 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…his issue, we agree this is a case of first impression in this state. The Third District has taken the position that the Waite decision is retroactive because the Florida Supreme Court did not specifically limit its application. Kalisch v. Kalisch, 646 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), rev. denied, 654 So. 2d 919 (Fla.1995). In [*352] general, when a court overrules a former decision, it is retrospective and prospective in its operation, unless the overruling opinion specifically declares it to have only a pros…
-
Mitchell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 678 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…ile Ass’n., 625 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (J. Zehmer concurring specially). . See Waite. . See Reid. . Appelman, Insurance Law and Practice, Vol. 8C, pp. 240-241. . See Hogan v. Tavzel, 660 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Kalisch v. Kalisch, 646 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). . Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 387 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1980).…
-
Deborah Temple v. Narinder S. Aujla, M.D., 681 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…v. Snedaker, 660 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Hogan v. Tavzel, 660 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), rev. den., 666 So. 2d 901 (Fla.1996); Hudson v. Moss, 653 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), rev. den., 673 So. 2d 29 (Fla.1996); Kalisch v. Kalisch, 646 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), rev. den., 654 So. 2d 919 (Fla.1995). The legislature has not really acted in this area but the courts have done so. See the erosion over the years of the impact rule. Zell v. Meek, 665 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.1995); Kush v. Lloyd, 616…
Authorities Cited
- Melendez v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 515 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1987)
- Beres Waite v. Waite, 618 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1993)
- Ingerson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 272 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Booze v. State, 297 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1974)
- Lapsley R. Caldwell v. Caldwell, 297 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1974)
- Wheeler v. Simmons, 291 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Ryter v. Brennan, 291 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Jones v. State, 621 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)