Selfe v. Smith
| Decision Date | 08 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. UU-238,UU-238 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Phillip Guy SELFE and Brenda Selfe, Appellants, v. J. Orson SMITH, Jr., David Willis Smith and The Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., Appellees. |
L. Ralph Smith, Jr., of Peeples, Earl, Smith, Moore & Blank, P. A., Tallahassee, for appellants.
A. Russell Bobo, David W. Spicer and Douglas P. Jones, of McFarlain, Bobo, Sternstein, Wiley & Cassedy, P. A., Tallahassee, for appellees.
The principal issue presented by the appeal is whether appellant Mrs. Selfe, who was injured simultaneously with her infant son in the impact of a motor vehicle collision, may recover for her mental distress over her child's permanent facial injury. We hold that she may not recover, and that the trial court correctly excluded proof of such damages. On defendants' cross-appeal the issue is whether the defendants, admittedly liable to the Selfe infant for the negligent operation of defendants' vehicle, were entitled to plead entitlement to contribution from the child's parents because they negligently failed "to secure, restrain or otherwise protect the infant" from the foreseeable risks of a traffic accident, by installing and strapping the child in a harness or other restraint device. Again we affirm the trial court, holding that the contribution claim so predicated was properly dismissed.
Appellants and their 16-month old son Joshua were front-seat occupants of the family pickup truck, driven by appellant Phillip Selfe, when it was struck head-on by appellees' truck. The child, who was lying unrestrained on the seat between his parents, was thrown forward by the sudden braking or by the impact, and he sustained a "crushing, cutting type of injury" inflicted by glass. 1 Liability was admitted, and the jury returned verdicts for Phillip and Brenda Selfe in the amounts of $5,000 and $10,000 and for Joshua in the amount of $135,000. The trial court admitted evidence of Brenda's emotional trauma due to the collision and her own injury, but insofar as possible excluded narrative testimony describing her anguish in seeing Joshua cut and bloodied at the scene and her later suffering due to Joshua's scarring and emotional changes. 2 The trial court previously had dismissed defendants' counterclaim which, in respect to the child's claim, sought contribution from the appellant parents for their alleged negligence in attending the child.
As a predicate for recovering all damages allegedly caused her by appellees' negligence, including her suffering on account of injuries to the child, Brenda Selfe urges that the rule requiring physical impact to plaintiff as a condition of compensating plaintiff for mental anguish is satisfied by the impact and minor physical injury that Brenda Selfe herself sustained. But satisfying the "impact rule" which is defended as verifying otherwise problematic injuries, or as drawing a needed if somewhat arbitrary line between compensable injuries and those that society requires be borne unrecompensed 3 until now has gained plaintiff damages for only that mental distress which is due to plaintiff's own injury, or to the traumatic event considered in relation to plaintiff alone. E. g., Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So.2d 593 (Fla. 1974); Herlong Aviation, Inc. v. Johnson, 291 So.2d 603 (Fla.1974); Woodman v. Dever, 367 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Ellington v. United States, 404 F.Supp. 1165 (M.D.Fla.1975). That fact, coupled with the principle that a parent's recovery for injury to his child is limited to pecuniary losses of services, earnings, and medical expenses, 4 persuades us that in the present condition of Florida case law, notwithstanding her physical injury by the same impact, Brenda Selfe may not recover for her anguish, as such, resulting from the child's injury.
Nor did the trial court err in dismissing appellees' counterclaim against the appellant parents for contribution toward damages payable to the child. Recent decisions in the Third and Fifth Districts held, no doubt properly so, that Shor v. Paoli, 353 So.2d 825 (Fla.1977), permits a contribution action against the parent whose negligence contributes to his child's injury. Quest v. Joseph, 392 So.2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Withrow v. Woods, 386 So.2d 607 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Those courts so held even though they consider that a child cannot sue his parent for negligence. Contra, Ard v. Ard, 395 So.2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We therefore agree with Quest 's holding that the negligent owner-driver of the car that struck a child in the street may claim parental contribution toward the damages assessed, on account of a parent's negligent supervision contributing to the child's injury. Nevertheless, for contribution purposes, we hold as a matter of law that a parent's "duty" to supervise and protect his child, actionable if neglected, does not require the parent to buy, install, and make ready for use, in the family vehicle, a child restraint device. Reserving the question of whether a case for the jury would be presented if the parent present in the car failed to buckle his child in a restraint device already installed, we hold that no contribution claim can be made for the parent's failure to provide the device.
The contribution counterclaim in this case may be considered inadequate in its generality, because its allegations that the elder Selfes negligently failed "to secure, restrain or otherwise protect the infant" do not descend to the particulars of how the parents could and should have protected their child from the risk of being thrown forward into the dash or windshield, supra n. 1. Plainly, appellees choose not to confront the causation-in-fact problems that would arise from their contending that Mrs. Selfe's negligence was simply her failure to hold Joshua on her lap, and that doing so would have prevented his injury. Rather, appellees treat their pleading as alleging, or as amendable to allege, the Selfes' specific failure to provide and strap Joshua into a harness or other child restraint device. The issue as so presented by appellees stands in the long shadow of Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966).
In Brown, this court held that a teenage passenger's failure to latch her seat belt in a moving automobile could not be considered contributory negligence barring her recovery against the negligent operator of a colliding vehicle. That view is the position of courts in a substantial majority of states that bar recovery on account of contributory negligence, 5 and it is the less decisive majority position among the comparative negligence states, 6 with whom Florida became aligned after Brown was decided. Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973). In any event, such authority as exists for the seat belt defense seems limited to cases in which a seat belt is in fact installed and available for use at the time of the collision. See Note, Reallocating the Risk of Loss in Automobile Accidents by Means of Mandatory Seat Belt Use Legislation, 52 So.Cal.L.Rev. 91, 99 (1978) ().
While there is fragmentary authority for mitigating or apportioning damages based on a parent's failure to fasten his child's automotive restraint device, see Latta v. Siefke, 60 A.D.2d 991, 992, 401 N.Y.S.2d 937, 938 (App.Div. 4th Dept.1978), citing Spier v. Barker, 35 N.Y.2d 444, 323 N.E.2d 164, 363 N.Y.S.2d 916 (1974), we have read no authoritative suggestion that a parent's duty to anticipate and protect his infant passenger against the negligence of other drivers extends beyond buckling an available restraint device and encompasses an earlier duty to buy and install such a device. We do not doubt the proposition that the Selfes' failure to buy, install, and use a child restraint device in their pickup was arguably among the causes-in-fact contributing to Joshua's facial injuries. 7 But we simply decline to recognize in the common law (there being no statutory obligation) an asserted duty of parents, the predicate for a potential contribution claim, to install child restraint devices in their vehicles. We hold that a jury cannot lawfully impose contribution liability on the parent, in favor of the collision-producing tortfeasor, for such an omission.
Having thus rejected a contribution claim which depends on a nonexistent antecedent duty in parents to buy and install a child restraint device, we need not advance the conventional, if troublesomely unconvincing, arguments against reducing the damages to be awarded in a comparative negligence state to one whose injury was more serious because he did not buckle an available seat belt. See Amend v. Bell, 89 Wash.2d 124, 570 P.2d 138, 95 A.L.R.3d 225 (1977). 8 See Note, Self-Protective Safety Devices: An Economic Analysis, 40 U.Chi L.Rev. 421, 438-39 (1973); 9 W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 65, at 423-24 (4th ed. 1971). 10
Thus we affirm the judgment of the trial court denying Mrs. Selfe recovery for her mental distress associated with Joshua's injury and denying appellees contribution by the allegedly negligent parents. We have also considered the Selfes' contention that the verdicts for their damages, as distinguished from Joshua's damages, are inadequate; we find the verdicts are supported by law and by substantial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis, 80-1895
...the first district's own recent observation that the arguments against the defense are "troublesomely unconvincing," Selfe v. Smith, 397 So.2d 348, 351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), but would directly hold that no acceptable reason exists for the continued rejection of the appellant's 1. The subsequ......
-
U.S. v. Dempsey
...hold that the damages recoverable by the parent of an injured child are limited to medical expenses and loss of services. Selfe v. Smith, 397 So.2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 407 So.2d 1105 (Fla.1981); Brown v. Caldwell, 389 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Hillsborough County Sch. Bd......
-
National Car Rental System, Inc. v. Bostic
...when his mother was killed in the accident when said evidence was inadmissible under the impact rule enunciated in Selfe v. Smith, 397 So.2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and Stewart v. Gilliam, 271 So.2d 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Rev. 291 So.2d 593 (Fla.1974). We have no quarrel with the aforeme......
-
Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp.
...belt was inadmissible both as defense on liability and as limitation on damages), quashed, 451 So.2d 446 (Fla.1984); Selfe v. Smith, 397 So.2d 348, 351 (Fla. 1st DCA) ("We need not advance the conventional, if troublesomely unconvincing, arguments against reducing the damages to be awarded ......