HILDA I. GATES, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY EDWIN FOLEY, JR., APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sex Discrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
Affirmed. See F.S. Section 2.01; F.S. A., Ripley v. Ewell, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 420.
CROSS, C. J., and McCAIN, J., concur.
WALDEN, J., dissents, with opinion.
(dissenting) :
The basic question is whether a wife is entitled to be compensated for loss of consortium where her husband has been negligently injured by a defendant. Thus far in Florida such recovery has been denied. In light of the trends and present concepts of jurisprudence, I suggest that it is time for the proposition to be freshly reviewed and such damages allowed. This change would strike down an unreasonable and discriminatory classification by sex and afford wives the equal protection- of law. It would accord with the intendment of U. S. Const. Amend. XIV § 1, Fla.Const. art. 1, §§ 2, 9 (1968) F.S.A.; The Civil Rights Act, U.S.Code, tit. 42, chapter 21 and The Married Women’s Property Act, F.S.1967, Chapter 708, F.S.A. See Stein*191metz v. Dworkin Truck Lines, Inc., 1968, 16 Ohio Misc. 273, 242 N.E.2d 686; Millington v. Southeastern Elevator Co., Inc., 1968, 22 N.Y.2d 498, 293 N.Y.S.2d 305, 239 N.E.2d 897; and Hitaffer v. Argonne Co. Inc., 1950, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 183 F.2d 811.
I do, therefore, dissent and would reverse the order dismissing the wife’s complaint with prejudice.
WALDEN, Judge
(dissenting) :
The basic question is whether a wife is entitled to be compensated for loss of consortium where her husband has been negligently injured by a defendant. Thus far in Florida such recovery has been denied. In light of the trends and present concepts of jurisprudence, I suggest that it is time for the proposition to be freshly reviewed and such damages allowed. This change would strike down an unreasonable and discriminatory classification by sex and afford wives the equal protection-of law. It would accord with the intendment of U. S. Const. Amend. XIV § 1, Fla.Const. art. 1, §§ 2, 9 (1968) F.S.A.; The Civil Rights Act, U.S.Code, tit. 42, chapter 21 and The Married Women’s Property Act, F.S.1967, Chapter 708, F.S.A. See Stein metz v. Dworkin Truck Lines, Inc., 1968, 16 Ohio Misc. 273, 242 N.E. 2d 686; Millington v. Southeastern Elevator Co., Inc., 1968, 22 N.Y.2d 498, 293 N.Y.S.2d 305, 239 N.E. 2d 897; and Hitaffer v. Argonne Co. Inc., 1950, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 183 F. 2d 811.
I do, therefore, dissent and would reverse the order dismissing the wife’s complaint with prejudice.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gates v. Foley, 247 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1971)…ADKINS, Justice. This cause is here on petition for writ of certiorari supported by certificate of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, that the decision reported on 233 So. 2d 190 (Fla.App. 4th, 1970) is one which involves a question of great public interest. See Fla.Const., art. V, § 4(2), F.S.A.; F.A.R. 4.5(c) (6), 32 F.S.A. We accept jurisdiction. Plaintiff, Hilda I. Gates, sued the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant…
Authorities Cited
- Hitaffer v. Argonne Co., Inc., 183 F.2d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
- Ripley v. Ewell, 61 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1952)
- Gertrude McGETTIGAN v. Nat'l Bank OF Wash. & Fred A. Smith & Co., 320 F.2d 703 (D.C. Cir. 1963)