WILLIAM BUSBY, APPELLANT,
v.
WINN & LOVETT MIAMI, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, D/B/A KWIK CHEK, 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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a dismissal of a husband's lawsuit for loss of consortium and medical expenses, holding that his claim is separate from his wife's personal injury claim and does not require her participation.
No, a husband's cause of action for loss of consortium and medical expenses is separate and distinct from his wife's personal injury claim and can be maintained independently without her joinder.
“It is clear from the language used by the trial court in its order that it was of the opinion that the husband's cause of action was "derivative of that of the wife," and that the complaint was dismissed solely because the wife had not participated in the action. This view was erroneous.”
Explains the trial court's reasoning for dismissal and states that this reasoning was incorrect.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA husband sued for damages related to his wife's injuries, alleging negligence by the defendant. The trial court dismissed the husband's suit because …
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 Derivative Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Chief Justice.
Appellant, plaintiff below, sought damages for loss of services, consortium and companionship of his wife and for medical expenses incurred by him on her behalf, all alleged to be the result of injury to the wife caused by the negligence of appellee. Motion to dismiss was duly made by the defendant and granted by the court. It is from that order that this appeal is taken.
It is clear from the language used by the trial court in its order that it was of the opinion that the husband’s cause of action was “derivative of that of the wife,” and that the complaint was dismissed solely because the wife had not participated in the action. This view was erroneous. A tort of a third person which causes personal injury to a married woman gives rise to two causes of action — one for her own personal injuries and the other for the husband’s loss of her society and services and for medical expenses incurred by him on her behalf. The two causes of action are separate and distinct and the husband’s action may be maintained without joinder of the wife. Waller v. First Savings & Trust Co., 103 Fla. 1025, 138 So. 780. See Womach v. City of St. Joseph, 201 Mo. 467, 100 S.W. 443, 10 L.R.A.,N.S., 140; 41 C.J.S. Husband and Wife, § 401, page 890; 27 Am.Jur. 116, Sec. 516.
Reversed.
TERRELL, SEBRING and THORNAL, JJ-, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Food Fair, Inc. v. Anderson, 382 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…. 2d 420, 422 (Fla.1952). In the majority of cases, the husband is allowed to bring an action for loss of consortium of his wife when she suffers physical personal injury through the negligence of another; e. g., Busby v. Winn & Lovett Miami, Inc., 80 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1955). However, the right to recover also exists wherever such loss is caused by another’s wrongful act intentionally inflicted, as for example, a malicious prosecution of the wife, or a defamation of her character. 41 Am. Jur.2d Husband and W…
-
Orange Cnty. v. Piper, 523 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…se of action belonging to the spouse of the injured married partner, and though derivative in the sense of being occasioned by injury to the spouse, it is a direct injury to the spouse who has lost the consortium. Busby v. Winn & Lovett Miami, Inc., 80 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1955); see also Ryter v. Brennan, 291 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 297 So. 2d 836 (Fla.1974); Resmondo v. International Builders of Fla., Inc., 265 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) (both cases holding that husband’s release did not abat…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Reyes, 688 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1996)…se of action belonging to the spouse of the injured married partner, and though derivative in the sense of being occasioned by injury to the spouse, it is a direct injury to the spouse who has lost the consortium. Busby v. Winn & Lovett Miami, Inc., 80 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1955); see also Ryter v. Brennan, 291 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert, denied, 297 So. 2d 836 (Fla.1974); Resmondo v. International Builders of Fla., Inc., 265 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) (both cases holding that husband’s release did not abat…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Waller v. First Sav. & Tr. Co., 103 Fla. 1025 (Fla. 1931)