DANIEL D. MORAN AND GREGG S. MORAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
RUTH E. STEPHENS, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, EDWARD STEPHENS, APPELLEES
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 court held that a husband cannot recover punitive damages in a derivative claim for injuries to his wife.
A wife was injured by a dog bite and received compensatory and punitive damages. Her husband also received compensatory and punitive damages on his de…
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 Derivative Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
A dog bit a wife. Based on jury verdict, she received judgment from the dog owners for compensatory and punitive damages. In addition, her husband in his derivative claim received compensatory and punitive damages.
We have examined the several points on appeal in light of the record, arguments and briefs, and find no merit or need for discussion, except for the appellants’ Point IV. It challenges on behalf of the dog owners the award of $5,000 as punitive damages to the husband. We are persuaded that this was fundamentally an impermissible award and reverse upon authority of Martin v. Story, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 343; Hughey v. Ausborn, 1967, 249 S.C. 470, 154 S.E.2d 839; and Fleming Oil Co. v. Watts, Tex.Civ.App.1946, 193 S.W.2d 979. See also generally, 25 A.L.R.3d 1416, Anno., Punitive Damages — Spouse or Parent, and for encyclopedic treatment 22 Am.Jur.2d, Damages, § 254 and 41 Am. Jur.2d, Husband and Wife, § 455.
We remand with directions to enter judgment in favor of the defendants as concerns the award of punitive damages in the sum of $5000 to the husband, Edward Stephens. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part, with directions.
WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., and JOHNSON, CLARENCE T., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hale v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 756 F.2d 1322 (8th Cir. 1985)…s is intended only as compensation. Hammond v. North American Asbestos Corp., 97 Ill.2d 195, 73 Ill.Dec. 350, 357, 454 N.E. 2d 210, 217 (1983); see Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Co. v. Coleman, 394 So. 2d 334, 341 (Ala.1980); Moran v. Stephens, 265 So. 2d 379, 380 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1972); Golden v. R.L. Greene Paper Co., 44 R.I. 231, 116 A. 579 (1922); Hughey v. Ausborn, 249 S.C. 470, 154 S.E. 2d 839, 843 (1967). But see Butcher v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 550 F.Supp. 692, 705-06 (D.Md.1981); Sheats v. B…
-
Carlson v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 693 F. Supp. 1073 (S.D. Fla. 1987)…Consortium Defendant moves to strike claims for punitive damages for loss of consortium. The court concludes that punitive damages are inappropriate in a claim for loss of consortium and disallowed by Florida precedent. Moran v. Stephens, 265 So.2d 379 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1972). See also 41 Am Jur 2d DAMAGES § 455; 22 Am Jur 2d HUSBAND AND WIFE § 255. Therefore, defendant’s motion to strike plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages for loss of consortium is GRANTED and those claims are strick…
Authorities Cited
- Martin v. Maude Story, 97 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)