NINA SCUDDER, APPELLANT,
v.
SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD, A CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that denying a wife the right to recover damages for loss of consortium, while granting that right to a husband, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiff's husband recovered a judgment for injuries caused by the Defendant. Plaintiff-wife then sued for loss of consortium, alleging she suffered …
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 Equal Protection Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a direct appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s complaint, which judgment construed a controlling provision of the Federal Constitution. Fla.Const., art. V, § 4(2) (1968), F.S.A.
The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
Plaintiff’s husband was allegedly injured due to the negligent acts of the Defendant and recovered a judgment. The Plaintiff-wife then instituted this suit alleging that as a result of the bodily injuries suffered by her husband through the negligent acts of the Defendant, the Plaintiff suffered damages by virtue of loss of consortium. The trial judge, upon motion, dismissed the wife’s complaint with prejudice on authority of Ripley v. Ewell, 61 So.2d 420 (Fla.1952).
Plaintiff argues that it is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to grant a husband in the State of Florida the right to recover damages for loss of companionship and consortium, and to deny that same right to a wife.
In Gates v. Foley, Fla., 247 So.2d 40, opinion filed April 7, 1971, we receded from Ripley v. Ewell, supra, and held that the denial of the right to the wife to seek damages for loss of consortium under such circumstances violated the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. We accept jurisdiction and reverse the judgment of the trial court upon authority of Gates v. Foley, supra.
The fact that the husband’s suit was terminated by a favorable judgment does not bar the wife from subsequently maintaining a cause of action for loss of consortium.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court of Hills-borough County for further proceeding.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, CARLTON, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
ROBERTS, C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorman K. Kimbrell, Jr. v. Paige, 448 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1984)…smissed along with the claim of her husband, the employee. The carrier litigated the issue of liability in the husband’s stead. Burtz. The wife’s claim would not have been barred had her husband brought suit, Scudder v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 247 So. 2d 46 (Fla.1971), thus the carrier’s suit cannot preclude her cause of action. The trial court’s dismissal of her claim, affirmed by the district court of appeal, is clearly erroneous. While I agree that the husband’s claim is barred, the wife’s claim is…
-
White Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 430 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…he common law rule,4 elected to follow the trend in other jurisdictions by recognizing that a wife is entitled to recover for loss of consortium in the same manner as her husband if she were injured. See also Scudder v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 247 So. 2d 46 (Fla.1971); Resmondo v. International Builders of Florida, Inc., 265 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Ryter v. Brennan, 291 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). An action for loss of consortium is, of course, a derivative action and the jury must first fin…
-
Reaves v. L. W. Rozzo, Inc., 286 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…questions by the late Fuller Warren in 9 Miami Law Quarterly 375.) The question posed by the trial court and certified to this court for disposition was determined by the Supreme Court of Florida in Scudder v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, Fla.1971, 247 So. 2d 46; Banores v. Austin, Fla.1971, 248 So. 2d 648, and Gates v. Foley, Fla. 1971, 247 So. 2d 40. Although numerous authorities have been cited to this court (by the defendants below) suggesting a position contrary to that espoused by our Supreme Court in…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gates v. Foley, 247 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1971)
- Ripley v. Ewell, 61 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1952)