Richards v. Richards, 91-1309

• Decision Date: 17 April 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-1309,91-1309
• Parties: Chauna Jo RICHARDS, etc., Appellant, v. Buddy Joe RICHARDS, Appellee. 599 So.2d 135, 17 Fla. L. Week. D990
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 135

599 So.2d 135

Chauna Jo RICHARDS, etc., Appellant, v. Buddy Joe RICHARDS, Appellee.

No. 91-1309.

599 So.2d 135, 17 Fla. L. Week. D990

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Fifth District.

April 17, 1992.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 1, 1992.

H. Scott Bates of Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A., and S. Joseph Piazza of S. Joseph Piazza, LL.M., P.A., Orlando, and Fred S. Pflaum of Pflaum, Dannheisser & Wallace, P.A., Sarasota, for appellant.

Edwin C. Cluster and James E. Collins of Ayres, Cluster, Curry, McCall & Briggs, P.A., Ocala, and Chandler R. Muller of Muller, Kirkconnell, Lindsey and Snure, P.A., Winter Park, for appellee.

COBB, Judge.

This is an appeal of the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of a complaint filed by a minor child (C.J.) against her father alleging damages resulting from sexual assaults. The legal issue is whether parental immunity bars suit by a child for damages resulting from her father's intentional tortious acts.

The appellant cites three significant Florida Supreme Court cases decided within the past quarter of a century which have discussed the doctrine of family immunity: Hill v. Hill, 415 So.2d 20 (Fla.1982); Ard v. Ard, 414 So.2d 1066 (Fla.1982); and Orefice v. Albert, 237 So.2d 142 (Fla.1970).

The 1970 Orefice case involved a negligence action. The mother of a minor killed in an airplane crash brought suit individually and as parent and next friend of the minor for his wrongful death, which resulted from the active negligence of the pilot, who was the minor's father and the plaintiff's husband. In disallowing the mother's action, the Court said:

It is established policy, evidenced by many decisions, that suits will not be allowed in this state among members of a family unit for tort. Spouses may not sue each other, nor children their parents. The purpose of this policy is to protect family harmony and resources.

In 1982, the supreme court recognized an exception to the parent/child immunity doctrine. In a negligence action arising from an accident and brought by an unemancipated minor child against a parent, parental immunity was waived to the extent of that parent's insurance coverage. Ard v. Ard, 414 So.2d 1066 (Fla.1982). In that same year, the court refused to modify the doctrine of interspousal immunity to allow recovery for intentional torts between spouses. It emphasized that the trial judge in a dissolution proceeding has the authority to consider any permanent injury or disfigurement or loss of earning capacity from such abuse when setting alimony. In upholding the immunity, the court cited the protection of the family unit and its concern that any intrusion into that unit would adversely affect the family relationship and family resources. Hill v. Hill, 415 So.2d 20 (Fla.1982).

As we interpret the foregoing cases, it would appear that Florida continues to adhere to the parent/child immunity doctrine with the exception of negligence actions where insurance coverage is available. The Florida Supreme Court recognizes that a straight suit for damages will reduce the amount of assets available for the support, education and protection of the family unit as a whole. Recovery against a...