Rumsey v. Manning, 75--788
| Decision Date | 07 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--788,75--788 |
| Parties | Leonard RUMSEY et al., Appellants, v. Michael M. MANNING and Vivian L. Manning, his wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael N. Brown, of Allen, Dell, Frank & Trinkle, Tampa, for appellants.
W. DeHart Ayala, Jr., of Few & Ayala, Tampa, for appellee Vivian L. Manning.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury award of $60,000 for loss of consortium.
The appellee, Michael M. Manning, was injured in an automobile accident on September 29, 1972. Mr. Manning, joined by his wife, brought suit against appellants to recover damages. The appellants admitted liability. Prior to the trial Mr. Manning withdrew his claim for loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Manning for $10,000 and in favor of Mrs. Manning for $60,000. The appellants satisfied Mr. Manning's judgment, but they have appealed from the judgment for Mrs. Manning.
Mrs. Manning operated a beekeeping business. Mr. Manning assisted her in this work. Mr. Manning suffered a permanent injury to a nerve in his left arm as a result of the accident. As a consequence he could no longer effectively assist Mrs. Manning in much of the manual and heavy lifting labor involved in the beekeeping business. She did not hire anyone to take his place. The primary thrust of Mrs. Manning's claim in this suit was for the loss of her husband's services in her business.
The right of a person to seek damages for the loss of the services of his or her spouse is not limited to those services which customarily arise out of the marriage relationship. In Lithgow v. Hamilton, Fla.1954, 69 So.2d 776, the supreme court said that among the lost services of his wife that a husband was entitled to recover in a wrongful death action was 'any special service which the wife was accustomed to perform for the husband in the household, and in his business without compensation, which will have to be replaced by hired services.' More recently, the district court of appeal in Leaseco, Inc. v. Barlett, Fla.App.4th, 1971, 257 So.2d 629, held that evidence of a deceased's wife's earnings outside of the household was properly admissible in a husband's wrongful death action. So long as there is no double recovery, we see no impediment to the recovery of the reasonable value of services customarily performed without compensation by one spouse in the other's business which are lost by reason of injuries suffered in an accident caused by a third party. In this case, since Mr. Manning waived any claim for loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, there was no possibility of a double recovery by Mrs. Manning. Cf., Kotsiris v. Ling, Ky.App.1970, 451 S.W.2d 411.
On the other hand, we believe the court erred in permitting, over appellant's objection, several beekeeping experts to testify concerning the reasonable value of the services of an expert beekeeper. The evidence reflected that the only services lost to Mrs. Manning by reason of her husband's injury were those of a manual nature. Thus, Mrs. Manning testified:
Q Okay. Could you tell me what he is able to do now?
A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White Const. Co., Inc. v. Dupont, AE-294
...attributable to the loss of a spouse's services was emphasized more recently by the Second District Court of Appeal in Rumsey v. Manning, 335 So.2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), wherein the wife sought to recover for loss of consortium, including the loss to the wife of the husband's services in h......
-
Hassan v. U.S. Postal Service
...Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 430 So.2d 915, 917-19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), reversed on other grounds, 455 So.2d 1026 (Fla.1984); Rumsey v. Manning, 335 So.2d 25, 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). When Florida courts have denied or limited damages for loss of services, it has been because of their concern with av......
-
Columbia/Jfk Medical Ctr. v. Sangounchitte
...(reversing for a new trial because of no relevant evidence substantiating the reasonable value of husband's services), Rumsey v. Manning, 335 So.2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The hospital also argues that the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees under section 766.209, Florida Statutes,......