Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Braz, s. 35233
| Decision Date | 09 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | 35149,Nos. 35233,s. 35233 |
| Citation | 196 So.2d 109 |
| Parties | ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY and Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company, Petitioners, v. Bernard BRAZ, Respondent. Bernard BRAZ, Petitioner, v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY and Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Reginald L. Williams, of Dixon, DeJarnette, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell, Miami, Ausley, Ausley, McMullen, O'Bryan, Michaels & McGehee and Charles S. Ausley, Tallahassee, for petitioners-respondent.
Nichols, Gaither, Beckham, Colson & Spence, Alan R. Schwartz and Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for respondent-petitioner.
There case, consolidated here for review, are before us on petitions for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Third District. Bernard Braz, plaintiff below, brought separate but consolidated actions against Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company to recover for the wrongful death of his wife and daughter who were killed in an automobile-train collision.
The deceased wife worked in the plaintiff's business, a family owned corporation, without compensation. The trial court, on jury award, entered judgment compensating the husband for the loss of such services. The District Court required remittitur holding the husband, individually, could not recover for the replacement value of services rendered gratis to the family corporation by the deceased wife. 1
The District Court declined to follow Lithgow v. Hamilton, 2 wherein it was held that among the elements of damage which the jury was entitled to consider was 'any special service which the wife was accustomed to perform * * * in his business without compensation, which will have to be replaced by hired services' because, as distinguished from the record showing in Lithgow, the husband's business was a corporation.
Insofar as the distinction is applicable to the cause sub judice, we perceive no substantial difference between a business conducted by an individual as a proprietorship and one conducted as a family corporation and hold that, if the corporation involved in this cause was a wholly owned family business operated by the husband, the jury was entitled to consider the value of future services lost to that business.
Aside from the above, there was in this cause, between trial judgment and appeal, a change in law which affected the result. Conflict jurisdiction having been shown, the decision of the District Court of Appeal herein is quashed without prejudice on authority of Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse. 3 The cause is remanded with directions to remand for a new trial.
It is so ordered.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray Drugfair, Inc. v. Heller
...in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Braz, 182 So.2d 491, 494-95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), quashed without prejudice on other grounds, 196 So.2d 109 (Fla.1967), that the trial court may in its discretion deny a requested instruction that any award to the plaintiff is not subject to federal income tax......
-
Leaseco, Inc. v. Bartlett
...the husband's business, which services would have to be replaced by hired services. Subsequently, in the case of Atlantic Coastline R.R. Co. v. Braz, Fla.1967, 196 So.2d 109, it was held that this identical element of damage was recoverable by the husband when the deceased wife's services w......
-
Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Hendrickson
...the Supreme Court in three decisions, Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse, Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 260; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Braz, Fla.1967, 196 So.2d 109; and Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Williams, Fla.1967, 199 So.2d 469, has held that in cases involving ra......
-
Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Williams, 35718
...this cause, we filed our opinions in Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse, Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 260, and Atlantic Coast Line Railway Company et al. v. Braz, 196 So.2d 109. In each of those cases the petitioner railroads did not attack the validity of Section 768.06 at the trial but ra......
-
Untangling taxes from personal injury damages.
...Next, in Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Braz, 182 So. 2d 491, 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), quashed without prejudice on other grounds, 196 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1967), the Third District held that although it might have been proper to give the instruction, the trial court did not abuse its discretio......