Cudahy Packing Co. v. Ellis
| Decision Date | 19 April 1932 |
| Citation | 105 Fla. 186,140 So. 918 |
| Parties | CUDAHY PACKING CO. v. ELLIS et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Escambia County; Thomas F. West, Judge.
Action by Elizabeth Ellis and another against the Cudahy Packing Company, a corporation. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
COUNSEL E. C. Maxwell, of Pensacola, for plaintiff in error.
Reese & Reese and Forsyth Caro, all of Pensacola for defendants in error.
Defendants in error recovered a judgment against the plaintiff in error in the sum of $9,566, for the wrongful death of Lawrence Ellis, son and brother of defendants in error (sections 4960 and 4961, Revised General Statutes of 1920, sections 7047 and 7048, Compiled General Laws of 1927). The trial court ordered a remittitur of $3,056, which was entered and the judgment allowed to stand for the balance, leaving the final judgment at $6,500, to which this writ of error was prosecuted.
Two errors were assigned here for review, one predicated on the excessiveness of the judgment, and the other on the irregularity of a charge, in that it was deleted and not given as requested by the defendant.
We have examined the charge as requested and as given, together with the general charge as given by the court, and we do not think that reversible error was shown to have been committed.
As to the excessiveness of the judgment, plaintiff in error contends that it not being liable for exemplary or punitive damages nor for the loss of companionship, mental pain, or anguish, that this is a case where the naked money question of the value of reasonably anticipated support is involved and that recovery is limited to the present value of said support which can be computed with mathematical certainty.
This court has great respect for counsel's view who proposes this contention, but we cannot agree with that part of his premise to the effect that recovery in such cases as this is limited in all events to present value of anticipated support which can be measured to mathematical certainty. At the time of his death, the deceased was twenty-four years old, his mother was sixty-three, and his brother was thirty-two. Both the latter were dependent for support on the deceased, who was a young man of good ability, industrious settled habits, dependable, appreciated his duty and obligation to contribute to the support of his dependent mother and brother, and was actually contributing $8 per week to their support at the time of his death. He was earning $18 per week at that time.
The weight of authority supports the rule that more than ordinary discretion may be allowed the jury in assessing damages in actions for wrongful death. They are not limited to a consideration of the age and probable life expectancy of the dependents, neither are they limited to a consideration of the age, earning power, and probable life expectancy of the deceased. They may consider the probable increased needs of the dependents and the probabilities of the deceased contributing to such increased needs. They may also consider the degree or spirit in which the deceased responded to his obligation to contribute to the support of his dependents the amount contributed in the past with probable future contributions, together with the likelihood of promotion, the relationship of those dependent on him, and increased income of the deceased. They may also consider the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bould v. Touchette
...present value of anticipated support which must be measured to a mathematical certainty. The rule is discussed in Cudahy Packing Co. v. Ellis, 105 Fla. 186, 140 So. 918 (1932): "The weight of authority supports the rule that more than ordinary discretion may be allowed the jury in assessing......
-
Touchette v. Bould
...type of damage award can be computed with mathematical certainty was rejected by our Supreme Court in the case of Cudahy Packing Co. v. Ellis, 105 Fla. 186, 140 So. 918 (1932). Likewise, in that same case the court made it clear that the jury's verdict cannot be predicated on conjecture, fa......
-
Ellis v. Golconda Corp., s. CC-47
...an award for loss of net accumulations of this prospective estate. A jury verdict must rest on real substance. Cudahy Packing Company v. Ellis, 105 Fla. 186, 140 So. 918 (1932). Sharon Notage, individually and as administratrix of Mrs. Notage's estate, cross assigned as error the trial cour......
-
Robert Young, Herbert Young, Benjamin Young & Yim Kam Young, Minors, Honolulu Trust Co. v. Honolulu Constr., 2293.
...possible other facts and circumstances,” indicating the continuance or increase of contributions in the future. Cudahy Packing Co. v. Ellis, 105 Fla. 186, 140 So. 918, 919. But the record is absolutely lacking in the essentials from which the jury could compute pecuniary loss, if any, suffe......