MINNIE BERGER SHOR, AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
GERALD PAOLI, SWEET & BLOSSOM, INC., AND FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE 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.
This dissenting opinion argues that a fire chief should not be barred from statutory health benefits simply because he did not undergo a pre-employment physical, especially when the employer had no such policy at the time of hiring.
The dissenting judge believes the deputy erred in strictly applying the proviso of the statute, which should not bar benefits when the employer lacked a pre-employment physical policy and the claimant's condition was later diagnosed.
[1] The Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act overrides the common law doctrine of interspousal immunity, allowing a joint tortfeasor to seek contribution from ano…
[2] A joint tortfeasor who has satisfied a judgment for damages awarded to an injured party may seek contribution from another joint tortfeasor, even if that other tortfeasor…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant, a fire chief, retired due to hypertension and arteriosclerotic heart disease, conditions presumed to be work-related under statute. Howe…
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 Family Law cases and more on FLexlaw
KARL, Justice.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari granted to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 345 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
The District Court has certified the following question for our determination:
“Does the common law doctrine of in-terspousal immunity control over the uniform contribution among joint tort-feasors act (75-108 Laws of Florida, Section 768.31, Florida Statutes) to prevent one tortfeasor from seeking a contribution from another tortfeasor when the other tortfeasor is the spouse of the injured person who received damages from the first tortfeasor?”
We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
Petitioner’s husband, David Shor, was a passenger in a motor vehicle operated by petitioner when her automobile and a vehicle operated by respondent Paoli, owned by Sweet & Blossom, Inc., collided, causing David Shor to sustain personal injuries. Respondent sued petitioner, petitioner sued respondent, and David Shor, asserting a claim for personal injuries, intervened. The jury found Paoli 65% at fault, petitioner 35% at fault and awarded David Shor $12,-000 against respondents. Respondents satisfied David Shor’s judgment against them and, thereafter, sought contribution from petitioner as a joint tortfeasor. She defended on grounds of interspousal immunity. Finding that interspousal immunity barred the action for contribution, the trial court entered judgment in favor of petitioners.
The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reversed the judgment of the trial court and reasoned:
“The doctrine of family or interspousal immunity is based on the desirability of the preservation of the family unit. The law of contribution of joint tortfeasors is meant to apportion the responsibility to pay innocent injured third parties between or among those causing the injury.
“In the case at bar it was determined that both Paoli and Shor caused the injury. Shor’s husband collected 100% of his damages from Paoli. To say that Shor doesn’t have to contribute and account for her wrongdoing would be unfair to Paoli and a windfall to Shor. This is not a case where the husband sued the wife on account of her negligence so we are not doing any real damage to the doctrine. This is a case where the joint tortfeasor sued the joint tortfeasor and we are ruling in support of that statute.”
We agree with the rationale of the District Court of Appeal and find that it has correctly answered the certified question in the negative. Insofar as Mieure v. Moore, 330 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), is inconsistent herewith, it is overruled.
Accordingly, we approve the decision of the District Court under review and discharge the writ.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C. J., and ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (31 total)
-
Raisen v. Raisen, 379 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1979)…established policy of this state that suits will not be allowed among members of a family unit for tort, and we said “[t]he purpose of this policy is to protect family harmony and resources.” 237 So. 2d at 145. Our recent decision in Shor v. Paoli, 353 So. 2d 825 (Fla.1977), although holding that interspousal tort immunity did not control over the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasor’s Act, did not affect the continued vitality of the doctrine. The continuing validity of this doctrine has also been re…
-
Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 387 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1980)…district court certified the question involved in this cause as being of great public interest, but its decision also has created conflict with our decisions in Reid v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1977), and Shor v. Paoli, 353 So. 2d 825 (Fla.1977). We adhere to our decisions in Shor v. Paoli and Reid v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. and again hold that a joint tortfeasor may seek and obtain a judgment for contribution from another joint tort-feasor even when that other tortfeaso…
-
Joseph v. Quest, 414 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1982)…rty judgment. Joseph cross-appealed, challenging the court’s entering judgment against his wife. The district court framed the issue as whether a defendant has a right of contribution against the parent of an injured child. Relying on Shor v. Paoli, 353 So. 2d 825 (Fla.1977), the court concluded that such a right oí contribution exists but certified the question to this Court. In Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla.1973), we established the rule of comparative negligence in this state and held that liabili…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 31 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Paoli v. Shor, 345 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Mieure v. Moore, 330 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)