Union Bus Co. v. Smith

• Decision Date: 26 March 1932
• Citation: 140 So. 631,104 Fla. 569
• Parties: UNION BUS CO. v. SMITH.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

140 So. 631

104 Fla. 569

UNION BUS CO. v. SMITH.

Florida Supreme Court

March 26, 1932

En Banc.

Error to Circuit Court, Columbia County; Hal W. Adams, Judge.

Suit by O. Z. Smith, as administrator of the estate of Eula Smith deceased, against the Union Bus Company. To review the judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

Reversed.

COUNSEL Milam, McIlvaine & Milam, of Jacksonville, and Bernard H. English, of Lake City, for plaintiff in error.

J. L Lee, of Live Oak, and Cone & Chapman, of Lake City, for defendant in error.

OPINION

BUFORD C.J.

In this case suit was brought by the administrator to recover damages for the wrongful death of Eula Smith. Judgment was in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $4,000, and writ of error was sued out. Had there been no other errors apparent in the record, the case should be reversed because the judgment is excessive.

The record fails to establish the probability that the decedent who was 21 years and about 5 months of age, would have accumulated any estate. The most the record shows is that she sometimes worked and when she did work she earned from $1.50 to $2 per day at certain seasons of the year and that she sometimes did some sewing for which she received as much as $2 per day. The other work which she did besides sewing was general farm work. The record further shows by the testimony of her father that she had probably earned up to this period in her life as much as $50. This amount would not have been sufficient to have supported her from the time she was 21 years of age up to the time she died.

Under the facts as shown by the record it appears clear that at best the decedent would probably have accumulated no estate during her lifetime, though she might have been capable of providing for her own necessities of life.

In Marianna & Blountstown Ry. Co. v. May, 83 Fla. 524, 91 So. 553, it was said:

'In an action brought under the statute by an administrator to recover damages for the wrongful death of his decedent where liability of the defendant is shown, the jury have no discretion in assessing the damages sustained, but, among other elements, the jury may consider evidence as to the age, probable duration of life, habits of industry, means, business, earnings, health, and skill of the deceased, and his reasonable future expectations. If the evidence shows the decedent's health, habits, or other conditions of life to be such that he had no reasonable future expectations of an estate, the recovery would, of course, be merely nominal.

'In an action for the wrongful death of a person brought by his administrator to recover damages for the loss of a prospective accumulated estate, the amount of the recovery is not the value of the decedent's life to any one or to the public, but the recovery is limited to the present value of an estate which the proofs show the decedent may reasonably have been expected to earn and save had he lived, where the accumulation of an estate by the decedent may reasonably have been expected, and the present value thereof can be ascertained with reasonable certainty from trustworthy evidence upon all matters affecting the probabilities as to life expectancy, physical condition, earning capacity, and opportunities, habits of life, and of accumulation and other pertinent circumstances.'

The record shows that on Sunday, the 22d day of June, 1930, Ben Smith let his five children, Kline Smith, Eula Smith, Julia Smith, Reese Smith, and Clarence Smith, have his light Ford truck equipped with a Ford seat for two in front and a truck body on the back, with a top over the front seat constructed like that on the ordinary Ford roadster, to go from his home near Providence to Lake City and visit their sister, Mrs. Wood; that they went to Lake City and visited Mrs. Wood and started to return from Lake City to their father's home with Mrs. Wood and one other person in the automobile, making seven in all, four of whom were riding on the front seat, which seat was intended for the convenience and occupancy of only two passengers. The facts in this case make a much stronger case for the application of the rule of joint enterprise...