ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY AND SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
BERNARD BRAZ, RESPONDENT; BERNARD BRAZ, PETITIONER, V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY AND SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, RESPONDENTS
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 reversed a District Court of Appeal decision that denied a husband recovery for the loss of services his deceased wife provided to their family corporation. The court held that the loss of spousal services to a family-owned corporation is a compensable element of damages in a wrongful death action, regardless of whether the business is structured as a proprietorship or corporation.
The court held that if the corporation involved was a wholly owned family business operated by the husband, the jury was entitled to consider the value of future services lost to that business as an element of damages. The court found no substantial difference between a business conducted as a proprietorship and one conducted as a family corporation for purposes of this damage calculation.
“if the corporation involved in this cause was a wholly owned family business operated by the husband, the jury was entitled to consider the value of future services lost to that business”
Establishes the holding that family corporation ownership does not bar recovery for loss of spousal services
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBernard Braz's wife and daughter were killed in an automobile-train collision. The deceased wife worked without compensation in the plaintiff's family…
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 Change In Law cases and more on FLexlaw
These cases, consolidated here for review, are before us on petitions for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Third District. Bernard Braz, plaintiff below, brought separate but consolidated actions against Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company to recover for the wrongful deaths of his wife and daughter who were killed in an automobile-train collision.
The deceased wife worked in the plaintiff’s business, a family owned corporation, without compensation. The trial court, on jury award, entered judgment compensating the husband for the loss of such services. The District Court required remittitur holding the husband, individually, could not recover for the replacement value of services rendered gratis to the family corporation by the deceased wife.1
The District Court declined to follow Lithgow v. Hamilton,2 wherein it was held that among the elements of damage which the jury was entitled to consider was “any special service which the wife was accustomed to perform * * * in his business without compensation, which will have to be replaced by hired services” because, as distinguished from the record showing in Lithgow, the husband’s business was a corporation.
Insofar as the distinction is applicable to the cause sub judice, we perceive no substantial difference between a business conducted by an individual as a proprietorship and one conducted as a family corporation and hold that, if the corporation involved in this cause was a wholly owned family business operated by the husband, the jury was entitled to consider the value of future services lost to that business.
Aside from the above, there was in this cause, between trial judgment and appeal, a change in law which affected the result. Conflict jurisdiction having been shown, the decision of the District Court of Appeal herein is quashed without prejudice on authority of Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse.3 The cause is remanded with directions to remand for a new trial..
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, ROBERTS and O’CON-NELL, JJ., concur.,
DREW, J., concurs specially with Opinion.
THORNAL, C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur specially and agree with DREW, J.
(concurring specially) :
I concur in all of the foregoing opinion and judgment except the concluding paragraph thereof in which it is stated “the decision of the District Court of Appeal herein is quashed without prejudice on authority of Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse” (Fla., 194 So.2d 260, opinion filed January 9, 1967, case no. 34,815). For my views concerning the propriety of reviewing initially on appeal the constitutionality of the comparative negligence statute, see my dissent in Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse this day filed.
THORNAL, C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
DREW, Justice
(concurring specially) :
I concur in all of the foregoing opinion and judgment except the concluding paragraph thereof in which it is stated “the decision of the District Court of Appeal herein is quashed without prejudice on authority of Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse” (Fla., 194 So. 2d 260, opinion filed January 9, 1967, case no. 34,815). For my views concerning the propriety of reviewing initially on appeal the constitutionality of the comparative negligence statute, see my dissent in Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse this day filed.
THORNAL, C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leaseco, Inc. v. Bartlett, 257 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…y value of the services which a wife was accustomed to performing without compensation in the husband’s business, which services would have to be replaced by hired services. Subsequently, in the case of Atlantic Coastline R.R. Co. v. Braz, Fla.1967, 196 So. 2d 109, it was held that this identical element of damage was recoverable by the husband when the deceased wife’s services were being performed for the husband’s family corporation. The element of damage involved is the economic loss of the wife’s services…
-
Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Hendrickson, 212 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…otherwise, in the trial court. See 190 So. 2d 178, at 182. Since that time, however, the Supreme Court in three decisions, Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse, Fla.1967, 194 So. 2d 260; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Braz, Fla.1967, 196 So. 2d 109; and Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Williams, Fla.1967, 199 So. 2d 469, has held that in cases involving railroad accidents where the jury, after being charged on the comparative negligence statute, brings in a verdict against the railroad, a…
-
Gray Drugfair, Inc. v. Raven Heller & Redevco Corp., 478 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…b, Inc., 368 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Treating the only point which warrants discussion, we adhere to our conclusion in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Braz, 182 So. 2d 491, 494-95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), quashed without prejudice on other grounds, 196 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1967), that the trial court may in its discretion deny a requested instruction that any award to the plaintiff is not subject to federal income taxation. In common with the overwhelming majority of the jurisdictions which have considered the is…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1966)
- Larkin Cmty. Hosp. Palm Springs Campus, LLC v. Liliana Perez de Gracia (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Lithgow v. Hamilton, 69 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 1954)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. & Seaboard Air Line R.R. Co. v. Braz, 182 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)