HOWZE
v.
LYKES BROS., INC.
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 affirmed dismissal of a father's action for damages for mental pain and suffering resulting from his minor son's negligent death while employed, holding that the Workmen's Compensation Act bars such recovery by providing the exclusive remedy for employment-related injuries.
The Workmen's Compensation Act bars the father from recovery. Once employer and employee accept the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, their relationship becomes contractual and other statutes authorizing recovery for negligent death become ineffective.
“The philosophy of workmen's compensation is that when employer and employee accept the terms of the act their relations become contractual and other statutes authorizing recovery for negligent death become ineffective.”
Establishes the foundational principle that the Workmen's Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy and displaces other tort remedies
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonald Howze, a minor, was killed in the line of duty while employed by the defendant. The decedent's father brought an action seeking damages for men…
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 Workmen'S Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice.
Donald Howze, a minor, was killed in line of duty while employed by appellee. Decedent’s father brought this action to recover damages for mental pain and suffering on account of the negligent death of his minor son. Motion to dismiss the complaint was granted and the plaintiff appealed.
The point for determination is whether or not Section 768.03, F.S.A. bars the father of a minor from recovery under the facts stated.
The trial court, on authority of Chamberlain v. Florida Power Corporation, 144 Fla. 719, 198 So. 486, answered this question in the affirmative and we think correctly. Appellant contends that it was not the purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to exclude the father from recovering damages for mental pain and suffering in a-case like this, but we think Section 440.11, F.S.A. is a complete answer to this contention. The philosophy of workmen’s compensation is that when employer and employee accept the terms of the act their relations become contractual and other statutes authorizing recovery for negligent death become ineffective. Shanahan v. Monarch Engineering Co., 219 N.Y. 469, 114 N.E. 795; In Liberato v. Royer, 281 Pa. 227, 126 A. 257 and others.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed on authority of the cited cases.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Erection Servs., Inc. v. Raymer McDONALD, 395 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…ractual, under later amendments to the workers’ compensation law of Florida the application of the act to employer and the employee alike became mandatory. See Sections 440.10, .38 and 43, Florida Statutes (1979); compare Howze v. Lykes Bros., Inc., 64 So. 2d 277 (Fla.1953). The purpose of workers’ compensation acts is to provide for employers a liability that is limited and determinative, and to employees a remedy that is both expeditious and independent of proof of fault. McLean v. Mundy, 81 So. 2d 501 (F…
-
Mullarkey v. Fla. Feed Mills, Inc., 268 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1972)…mount of $500.00; § 440.16(2) (e), allowing recovery to parents only if dependent. The prior decisions of this Court, which are similar in fact and in law to this case, are Amsler v. Sox Meat Packers, 75 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1954), Howze v. Lykes Bros., 64 So. 2d 277 (Fla.1953), and Chamberlain v. Florida Power Corp., 144 Fla. 719, 198 So. 486 (1940). Appellant’s case in Circuit Court, as well as here, was based on the contention that the above statutory sections were unconstitutional; under this theory, it is…
-
Crosby v. Reg'l Util. Bd., 400 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…the Workmen’s Compensation Act, bound himself as well as his representative and survivors to the employer’s exclusive liability provision of the Act. In reaching that decision, the court quoted from its earlier decision, Howze v. Lykes Bros., Inc., 64 So. 2d 277 (Fla.1953), as follows: “Appellant contends that it was not the purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to exclude the father from recovering damages for mental pain and suffering in a case like this, but we think Section 440.11, F.S.A. [the excl…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chamberlain v. Fla. Power Corp., 144 Fla. 719 (Fla. 1940)