EDWARD A. WADSWORTH, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARET RYAN FRIEND, APPELLEE
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.
In this wrongful death appeal, the court affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff-daughter who claimed dependency on her deceased mother for support. The court held that dependency is determined by facts existing at the time of death, and that evidence of collateral source funds received after the death is inadmissible to reduce damages.
The dependency status must be determined by factual circumstances existing at the time of death, and the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for jury determination of her dependent status. Evidence of collateral source funds received after the death is inadmissible to mitigate damages in wrongful death actions.
“The status of dependency is and should be determined by factual circumstances existing at the time of the death.”
Establishes the temporal standard for determining dependency in wrongful death cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMargaret Ryan Friend, age 42, has been 100% disabled with rheumatoid arthritis since age 15, confined to a wheelchair or bed and requiring constant as…
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 Pecuniary Loss cases and more on FLexlaw
E. A. Wadsworth, defendant, files an appeal from a final judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, Margaret Ryan Friend. The appeal seeks review of a dual question of (a) whether the plaintiff was a dependent under the wrongful death statute and (b) whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence concerning collateral source funds which the plaintiff, after the death of her mother, received by way of divorce settlement in .the amount of $14,800 from her estranged husband who had a legal duty to support her but had not done so since 1958.
Margaret Ryan Friend, plaintiff, age 42, has suffered with rheumatoid arthritis since the age of 15. She is one hundred per cent disabled, completely dependent upon others, confined to a wheel chair or bed all of the time and requires assistance in and out of bed as well as for personal requirements. Following the death of her mother and having no one to aid her she placed herself in a nursing home. From 1952 to 1958, plaintiff underwent a series of operations, the medical expenses of which were paid out of her husband’s medical insurance policy. From 1958 forward the husband contributed -nothing toward her support and plaintiff’s parents provided total support. On May 21, 1964, her father died after which her mother, Helen Ryan, assumed not only the complete financial burden of plaintiff’s care and support but also the personal attention.
The lawsuit arose out of an automobile accident on January 8, 1965, which resulted in the death of the mother on January 17, 1965, and action was brought under Florida’s Wrongful Death Statute claiming that the plaintiff was dependent upon her mother for support. The trial court denied a motion for directed verdict on the issue of dependency, which question was submitted to the jury for determination. In addition, the court excluded “collateral source fund evidence” concerning a $14,800 *643settlement received from the husband after the death of the mother in lieu of alimony.
The status of dependency is and should be determined by factual circumstances existing at the time of the death. Florida, like almost all of the states, follows the general rule that damages for wrongful death are based upon pecuniary loss at the time of death. (See 30 A.L.R. 121)
In Duval v. Hunt, 1894, 34 Fla. 85, 100, 15 So. 876, 881, the Supreme Court of Florida points out clearly that the dependency must be determined upon facts and we quote in part from that decision:
“We think that when the suit is brought by a person who bases his right to recover upon the fact that he is a dependent upon the deceased for support, then he must show, regardless of any ties of relationship or strict legal right to such support, that he or she was, either from the disability of age, or nonage, physical or mental incapacity, coupled with the lack of property means, dependent in fact upon the deceased for a support. There must be, when adults claim such dependence, an actual inability to support themselves, and an actual dependence upon some one else for support, coupled with a reasonable expectation of support, or with some reasonable claim to support, from the deceased.”
Turning now to the question of collateral source funds, the rule is discussed in Paradis v. Thomas, Fla.1963, 150 So.2d 457, and numerous references are cited therein. Florida aligns itself with that view which rejects evidence from collateral sources to mitigate damages. Here the defendant claims that the divorce settlement, subsequent to the death of the mother, should have been submitted to the jury to be considered by them in the reduction, if any, of the award. We do not agree. Finding no reversible error the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
ANDREWS and CROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Myles Smyer v. Gaines, 332 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…source doctrine, the public policy of Florida, and the legislative intent of the .Wrongful Death Act. Damages for wrongful death may not be reduced by amounts received by beneficiaries as compensation from a collateral source. Wadsworth v. Friend, 201 So. 2d 641 (Fla.App. 4th, 1967). The placement in the act of subsection (6) (c) of Section 768.21, Florida Statutes, “Evidence of remarriage of the decedent’s spouse is admissible”, indicates that there are only two purposes for which the evidence could be us…
-
Cinghina v. Racik, 647 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…able expectation of support, or with some reasonable claim to support, from the deceased.” Id. at 101, 15 So. at 881 (emphasis added). The state of dependency is determined by factual circumstances existing at the time of death. Wadsworth v. Friend, 201 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); accord King v. Font, 612 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Neither Kelli, 27, nor Cheryl, 29, are “minor children” for the purposes of section 768.18. To maintain a wrongful death action, they therefore must qualify as wholly or p…
-
Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Hill, 270 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1972)…the wrongful death. It has been held in a number of Florida cases that a wrongdoer cannot diminish his damages by evidence of benefits flowing to the claimant from an independent collateral source. See for example Wadsworth v. Friend, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So. 2d 641, wherein the Fourth District held that damages for wrongful death are based on pecuniary loss calculated as of the time of death and that evidence of the amount of funds received from a collateral source after the death of plaintiff’s decedent was n…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Duval v. Hunt, 34 Fla. 85 (Fla. 1894)
- Paradis v. Thomas, 150 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)