Howze v. Lykes Bros.
| Citation | 64 So.2d 277 |
| Parties | HOWZE v. LYKES BROS., Inc. |
| Decision Date | 24 March 1953 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Will O. Murrell and Wm. O. Murrell, Jr., Jacksonville, and Woolfolk & Myers, Lake Wales, for appellant.
Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellee.
Donald Howze, a minor, was killed in line of duty while employed by appellee. Decedent's father brought this action to recover damages for mental pain and suffering on account of the negligent death of his minor son. Motion to dismiss the complaint was granted and the plaintiff appealed.
The point for determination is whether or not Section 768.03, F.S.A. bars the father of a minor from recovery under the facts stated.
The trial court, on authority of Chamberlain v. Florida Power Corporation, 144 Fla. 719, 198 So. 486, answered this question in the affirmative and we think correctly. Appellant contends that it was not the purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act to exclude the father from recovering damages for mental pain and suffering in a case like this, but we think Section 440.11 F.S.A. is a complete answer to this contention. The philosophy of workmen's compensation is that when employer and employee accept the terms of the act their relations become contractual and other statutes authorizing recovery for negligent death become ineffective. Shanahan v. Monarch Engineering Co., 219 N.Y. 469, 114 N.E. 795; In Liberato v. Royer, 281 Pa. 227, 126 A. 257 and others.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed on authority of the cited cases.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horney v. Meredith Swimming Pool Co., 691
...Works, supra; Patterson v. Sears-Roebuck & Co., supra; Chamberlain v. Florida Power Corporation, 144 Fla. 719, 198 So. 486; Howze v. Lykes Bros., 64 So.2d 277 (Fla.); Bigby v. Pelican Bay Lumber Co., 173 Or. 682, 147 P.2d 199 (Or.); Atchison v. May, 201 La. 1003, 10 So.2d 785; Neville v. Wi......
-
Mullarkey v. Florida Feed Mills, Inc.
...this Court, which are similar in fact and in law to this case, are Amsler v. Sox Meat Packers, 75 So.2d 207 (Fla.1954), Howze v. Lykes Bros., 64 So.2d 277 (Fla.1953), and Chamberlain v. Florida Power Corp., 144 Fla. 719, 198 So. 486 Appellant's case in Circuit Court, as well as here, was ba......
-
Gen. Dynamics Corp.. v. Brottem
...of the [A]ct their relations become contractual and other statutes authorizing recovery ... become ineffective.” Howze v. Lykes Bros., 64 So.2d 277, 277–78 (Fla.1953) (citations omitted). In this regard, the Act provides that workers' compensation “shall be exclusive and in place of all oth......
-
Florida Erection Services, Inc. v. McDonald
...employer and the employee alike became mandatory. See Sections 440.10, .38 and .43, Florida Statutes (1979); compare Howze v. Lykes Bros., Inc., 64 So.2d 277 (Fla.1953). The purpose of workers' compensation acts is to provide for employers a liability that is limited and determinative, and ......