TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
T. A. KNOWLES, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 reviewed a wrongful death case where a child was struck by a street car. The court found that while liability might exist, the parents' contributory negligence was not properly accounted for in the damages awarded.
The court held that the parents' contributory negligence was evident and that the damages awarded did not reflect the statutory requirement to diminish recovery in proportion to the parents' fault. Therefore, the judgment was subject to modification or reversal.
“This is not an action by an infant for personal injuries where contributory negligence of the parents will not be imputed to the child.”
Distinguishing the current wrongful death action from a personal injury action brought by a minor.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA fifteen-month-old child was killed by a passing street car. The child's father brought an action for damages for mental pain and suffering. The chil…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Damages For Mental Pain And Suffering cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— An action was brought under the statute, Section 4962, Revised General Statutes of 1920, by the father to recover damages for mental pain and suffering by the father and mother because of the wrongful death of their fifteen months’ old minor child caused by impact with defendant’s street car, the child being unattended and walked too near the street ear track in front of plaintiff’s home just as a car was passing. Verdict and judgment for $5,000.00 were rendered for the plaintiff and defendant took writ of error. This is not an action by an infant for personal injuries where contributory negligence of the parents will not be imputed to the child. Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Adams, 50 Fla. 429, 39 South. Rep. 183.
It is not clear that, notwithstanding the verdict and judgment, liability of the defendant is not shown, but it is clear that contributory negligence of the parents appears as averred, and the amount of the damages awarded indicates that the damages were not diminished in proportion to the default attributable to the parents as is required by the statute, Section 4962, 4964, 4965, Eevised General Statutes of 1920.
If the plaintiff remits $2,500.00, the judgment will stand for the remainder, $2,500.00; otherwise, the judgment will stand reversed for a new trial.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, C. J., and Ellis, J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raphael Klepper v. Breslin, 83 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1955)…ile the relationship of husband and wife exists and for this reason the law recognizes and provides compensation to the husband for loss or injury resulting to him by reason of the mother’s mental pain and anguish. In Tampa Electric Co. v. Knowles, 91 Fla. 1032, 109 So. 219, this Court specifically held that the amount of the verdict in favor of a father in an action for' the wrongful death of a minor child should be reduced under the comparative negligence rule because it was clear that the contributory n…
-
Powell v. Marcus, 127 Fla. 203 (Fla. 1937)…000.00 was held insufficient recompense in a case where neither the parents nor the decedent was at fault. Miami Dairy Farms v. Tinsley, 115 Fla. 164, 155 So. 852. See also Devane v. Bauman, 82 Fla. 346, 90 So. 192. In Tampa Electric Co. v. Knowles, 91 Fla. 1032, 109 So. 219, the parents were negligent but the infant was not. If a remittitur is entered for $2,000.00 as of the date of the judgment, the judgment will stand affirmed for a new trial. It is so ordered. Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J.,…
-
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Ward, 81 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 1955)…avoid hazards under the. circumstances shown here. The crossing at which it occurred was regularly used by pedestrians and school buses. We have examined Bagdad Land & Lumber Co. v. Boyette, 104 Fla. 699, 140 So. 798; Tampa Electric Co., v. Knowles, 91 Fla. 1032, 109 So. 219; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Smith, Fla. 1951, 53 So. 2d 301; Winner v. Sharp, Fla.1949, 43 So. 2d 634, and other cases cited by counsel for both parties, but we do not think any of them rale the case at bar. The only other question…
Authorities Cited
- The Jacksonville Elec. Co. v. Adams, 50 Fla. 429 (Fla. 1905)