Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 67--27
Decision Date | 30 August 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 67--27,67--27 |
Citation | 202 So.2d 8 |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Parties | J. D. BOOTH, Appellant, v. MARY CARTER PAINT COMPANY, Delaware corporation, Wallace Tompkins, Crofford D. Hancock, B. C. Willoughby and Harry Lee Sutton, Appellees. |
Mark R. Hawes, of Hawes & Hadden, Tampa, for appellant.
E. R. Mills, Jr., Ocala, for appellees Mary Carter Paint Co., Tompkins and Hancock.
William T. Keen and lucius M. Dyal, Jr., of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa, for appellees Willoughby and Sutton.
Appellant, J. D. Booth, in his complaint charged the defendants with the negligent operation of their motor vehicles which resulted in the death of his wife. Defendants' answer denied the charge of negligence. Trial was had and the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $15,000 for the plaintiff. The trial court denied appellant's motion for a new trial and he brings this appeal seeking a new trial primarily on the question of damages only.
This action at law was previously before this Court in the case styled Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Company, reported in 182 So.2d 292. The facts reported in the opinion of that case should be reviewed in order to more fully understand the facts established in the trial of the case sub judice.
Paragraph 9 of the complaint alleges:
'(a) The loss of care and support of plaintiff and his and decedent's minor children.
'(b) The loss of his wife's companionship, love, affection and consortium.
'(c) The loss of his wife's services as a housekeeper, mother and caretaker of their minor children.
'(d) Expenses in connection with the necessary burial of his wife.'
The lower court, upon motion of the defendants, struck from the complaint subparagraph 9(a), i.e., 'the loss of care and support of plaintiff and his and decedent's minor children.' During the trial of the case plaintiff attempted to introduce evidence of the wife's earnings, etc., claimed under subparagraph 9(a) above mentioned, which the court refused to permit.
Based on the contents of the complaint at the time of trial, the court did not commit error in denying the proffered evidence since the complaint being tried had no provision for this specific damage. We are not passing upon the question of whether such evidence would be proper if the complaint had claimed the same.
Appellant did not assign as error the granting of the motion to strike, and consequently, this particular judicial act is not reviewable by us on appeal.
The appellant, in his reply brief, states:
'(d) The case of Potts v. Mulligan (S.Ct.1940) 141 Fla. 685, 193 So. 767, 770, an action by the husband for the wrongful death of his wife, which held that funeral expenses the husband incurred had to be specifically pleaded, but that no allegation was necessary as to his damages for loss of society, companionship and consortium.'
We do not construe the Potts case as holding that it is unnecessary to allege damages for loss of society, companionship and consortium because the declaration in that case had a bill of particulars, which alleged these items, attached as an Exhibit and was made a part thereof.
In Potts v. Mulligan, supra, syllabus 4 states:
'Where bill of particulars, which was expressly made part of the declaration in surviving husband's action for death of wife, contained an item for loss of wife's society and companionship, the pleadings were sufficient to authorize award of damages to husband for loss of wife's society and companionship, although declaration contained no express allegations as to such damages.'
On page 769 of the opinion, it is stated:
'It is true that in the body of the declaration in this case there is no express or specific claim of damages for funeral expenses, but they are itemized in the Exhibit which was made a part of the declaration, and this we hold to be sufficient, provided of course said funeral expenses are recoverable by the husband in such an action as this.'
Then on page 770 of the Potts opinion is the following:
* * *'
An agreement between William T. Keen of the firm of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings, Glos & Evans, as counsel of record for the defendants, B. C. Willoughby and Harry Lee Sutton, and Mark R. Hawes, of the firm of Hawes and Hadden, counsel of record for the plaintiff, J. D. Booth, provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gum v. Dudley
...Co., 143 Vt. 416, 469 A.2d 742, 748 (1983). We note that the name for this type of settlement is derived from Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 202 So.2d 8 (Fla.App. 1967), overruled, Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So.2d 385 5. We qualified the general disclosure requirement of Vapor Corp. in syllabus po......
-
State ex rel. Vapor Corp. v. Narick
...position, we are cited cases which involve what have become known as "Mary Carter agreements," a name taken from Booth v. Mary Carter, 202 So.2d 8 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1967), overruled, 284 So.2d 385, 388 (Fla.1973). This term of art was defined in Vermont Union High School Dist. No. 21 v. H.P.......
-
Elbaor v. Smith
...a central tenet of our judicial system--those called into court should be allowed to answer. B. Originating in Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 202 So.2d 8 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1967), overruled by Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So.2d 385, 388 (Fla.1973), the term "Mary Carter agreement" has been loosely app......
-
Reager v. Anderson
...case, we disagree. This case involves a so-called "Mary Carter" settlement agreement. The name is derived from Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 202 So.2d 8 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1967), overruled in part, Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So.2d 385 (Fla.1973). This Court summarized the four essential features of......
-
Motor vehicle accident and other personal injury cases
...the agreement, likely would weigh the evidence differently than if the agreement was kept secret. [ Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Company , 202 So. 2d 8 (Fla. DCA 1967).] Mary Carter agreements are collusive and can skew the result of a trial. Before 1993, Mary Cater agreements were discoverab......
-
Trial
...and finding that they are essentially collusive, a divided court rejected the views expressed in Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co. ( supra ) [202 So. 2d 8 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967)] and held that a new trial was required as to the non-signing defendants because of the trial court’s error in r......
-
Like a Good Neighbor: the United States Supreme Court Ignored Malicious Conduct and Precedent to Ratchet Down Punitive Damages in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell
...nonsettling parties and/or judge and jury; 4) a guarantee of minimum recovery to the plaintiff. Id. See Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 202 So. 2d 8 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967), overruled in part by Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So. 2d 385, 388 (Fla. 1973) (detailing Mary Carter Agreements). 51. Campbe......
-
Like a Good Neighbor: the United States Supreme Court Ignored Malicious Conduct and Precedent to Ratchet Down Punitive Damages in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell
...nonsettling parties and/or judge and jury; 4) a guarantee of minimum recovery to the plaintiff. Id. See Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 202 So. 2d 8 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967), overruled in part by Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So. 2d 385, 388 (Fla. 1973) (detailing Mary Carter Agreements). 51. Campbe......