PAUL WEINSTEIN
v.
ETHEL WEINSTEIN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a divorce complaint based on extreme cruelty. The court held that the wife's paralysis, resulting from an accidental injury unrelated to the husband, did not constitute extreme cruelty as a ground for divorce.
No, extreme cruelty as a ground for divorce must involve an act of commission or omission by the defendant, not an accidental injury for which the defendant is not responsible.
“It is elementary that cruelty to constitute a ground for divorce must consist of some act of commission or of omission by the defendant to the plaintiff and cannot exist by reason of some accident for which the defendant has been in no way responsible.”
Establishes the legal definition of cruelty for divorce purposes.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWithin days of marriage, before consummation, the wife was accidentally injured by falling glass, causing paralysis and confinement to a hospital. She…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Appeal brings for review a decree dismissing amended bill for divorce on the alleged ground of extreme cruelty.
It is elementary that cruelty to constitute a ground for divorce must consist of some act of commission or of omis*567sion by the defendant to the plaintiff and cannot exist by reason of some accident for which the defendant has been in no way responsible. See Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 50 Sou. 867.
In this case it is alleged in effect that within two or three days after the parties were united in marriage, and before the marriage was consummated by cohabitation, the defendant (without fault of either party) was injured by falling glass, from the effects of which she became paralyzed and has ever since been confined in a hospital and has been unable to perform any of the physical marital duties..
Plaintiff does allege that defendant exhibited a coolness toward him and accused him of being responsible for her condition.
The allegations of the amended bill fall far short, of being sufficient to charge extreme cruelty to plaintiff by defendant.
The decree is affirmed.
THOMAS, C.J., ADAMS and BARNS, JJ., concur.