SARAH WOODSON, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES W. WOODSON, 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.
Sarah Woodson appealed a summary judgment dismissing her second wrongful death suit against James W. Woodson based on simple negligence, after her first suit based on gross negligence had been dismissed. The Florida Supreme Court held that both suits were barred by res judicata because they involved identical parties, the same subject matter, and the same wrongful death statute.
No. The court held that both causes of action were barred by res judicata because they were both grounded on the same wrongful death statute and involved identical parties and subject matter, making the first judgment conclusive as to all issues raised in the second action.
“Both causes of action were based on the wrongful death statute, Sec. 768.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., this being the second attempt to recover, the survival of actions statute is not involved.”
Establishes that both the first and second suits were grounded on the same statutory basis, distinguishing this from a survival of actions claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSarah Woodson's husband, Cecil Woodson, was killed when a truck driven by James W. Woodson overturned while the deceased was a guest in the vehicle. W…
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 Simple Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
May 6, 1954, Sarah Woodson sued James W. Woodson to recover damages for the negligent death of her husband, Cecil Wood-son. The complaint charged that while deceased was an invited guest in the truck of defendant, the truck turned over and her husband was killed because of defendant “failing to stay awake while driving the truck.” Motion to dismiss, to strike and depositions were filed and motion for summary judgment on the part of defendant was granted August 10, 1954. No appeal was taken from this judgment.
February 24, 1955, Sarah Woodson filed a second suit against the same defendant based on the same' accident except that she abandoned gross negligence and charged simple negligence in that defendant and her husband had a community of interest in the enterprise they were on, that both operated and controlled the truck and were sharing the expenses. The complaint was later amended to show that the relationship of private carrier for hire and passenger existed between defendant and plaintiff’s husband. Defendant again moved to dismiss, to strike and for summary judgment, the latter being grounded on the charge that the instant action involved the identical parties and subject matter that were described in the first action heretofore recounted consequently the controversy between the parties to said cause was finally determined and the summary judgment in the first action is res adjudicata as to issues raised in the present action. At final hearing the motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant was granted, from which the present appeal was prosecuted.
The only point for determination is whether or not the widow could maintain the second action for the wrongful death of her husband grounded on simple negligence after the first suit based on gross negligence under wrongful death statute resulted in judgment for defendant from which no appeal was taken.
We think the question requires a negative answer. Both causes of action were based on the wrongful death statute, Sec. 768.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., this being the second attempt to recover, the survival of actions statute is not involved. In our view the following cases conclude the point and require affirmance of the judgment. Tidwell v. Witherspoon, 21 Fla. 359, 58 Am.Rep. 665; Hay v. Salisbury, 92 Fla. 446, 109 So. 617; Plymouth Citrus Products Co-op. v. Williamson, Fla., 71 So. 2d 162; Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 So. 867, 26 L.R.A.,N.S., 577; McEwen v. Growers’ Loan & Guaranty Co., 116 Fla. 540, 156 So. 527. See Shearn v. Orlando Funeral Home, Inc., Fla., 88 So. 2d 591.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J., and HOBSON and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yrma M. Signo, M.D. v. Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 454 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…properly be pleaded in a fourth amended complaint after affirmance of a summary judgment for the appel-lees on the theories raised in the third amended complaint. The Supreme Court of Florida followed the foregoing rationale in Woodson v. Woodson, 89 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1956), where a widow sued to recover for the wrongful death of her husband on the theory that he was an invited guest passenger and the defendant was grossly negligent. This suit resulted in a summary judgment for defendant. The widow then file…
-
Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…the probate action. This holding complements the policy of expeditiously resolving a person’s claim against an estate, on whatever grounds might exist, in a single probate proceeding. A third supreme court case following Hay is Woodson v. Woodson, 89 So. 2d 665 (Fla.1956). There a widow brought a wrongful death action arising from the death of her husband in a truck accident; she alleged that the defendant committed “gross negligence” by failing to stay awake while driving the truck. Id. at 666. The trial…
-
Leahy v. Batmasian, 960 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…added). Thus, the question which must be asked to determine the application of res judicata is whether the essential elements of the [*18] cause of action, and thus the ultimate facts to be proved, are the same. For instance, in Woodson v. Woodson, 89 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1956), a widow first filed suit for wrongful death of her husband on a theory of gross negligence of the driver. After that suit failed, she then filed a wrongful death action against the same defendant, alleging a private carrier for hire rel…
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
- Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1909)
- Hay v. Lyman A. Salisbury and Ruth Salisbury, 92 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1926)
- Crute v. State, 109 So. 617 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926)
- Shearn v. Orlando Funeral Home, Inc., 88 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1956)
- Tidwell v. Witherspoon, 21 Fla. 359 (Fla. 1885)
- Plymouth Citrus Prods. Co-Op. v. Williamson, 71 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1954)
- McEwen v. Growers Loan & Guar. Co., 116 Fla. 540 (Fla. 1934)