Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Braz

196 So. 2d 109, 1967 Fla. LEXIS 3948
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 9, 1967
DocketNos. 35233, 35149
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 196 So. 2d 109 (Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Braz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Braz, 196 So. 2d 109, 1967 Fla. LEXIS 3948 (Fla. 1967).

Opinions

CALDWELL, Justice.

These cases, consolidated here for review, are before us on petitions for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Third District. Bernard Braz, plaintiff below, brought separate but consolidated actions against Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company to recover for the wrongful deaths of his wife and daughter who were killed in an automobile-train collision.

The deceased wife worked in the plaintiff’s business, a family owned corporation, without compensation. The trial court, on jury award, entered judgment compensating the husband for the loss of such services. The District Court required remittitur holding the husband, individually, could not recover for the replacement value of services rendered gratis to the family corporation by the deceased wife.1

The District Court declined to follow Lithgow v. Hamilton,2 wherein it was held that among the elements of damage which the jury was entitled to consider was “any special service which the wife was accustomed to perform * * * in his business without compensation, which will have to be replaced by hired services” because, as distinguished from the record showing in Lithgow, the husband’s business was a corporation.

Insofar as the distinction is applicable to the cause sub judice, we perceive no substantial difference between a business conducted by an individual as a proprietorship and one conducted as a family corporation and hold that, if the corporation involved in this cause was a wholly owned family business operated by the husband, the jury was entitled to consider the value of future services lost to that business.

Aside from the above, there was in this cause, between trial judgment and appeal, a change in law which affected the result. Conflict jurisdiction having been shown, the decision of the District Court of Appeal herein is quashed without prejudice on authority of Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse.3 The cause is remanded with directions to remand for a new trial..

It is so ordered.

THOMAS, ROBERTS and O’CON-NELL, JJ., concur., DREW, J., concurs specially with Opinion. THORNAL, C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur specially and agree with DREW, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gray Drugfair, Inc. v. Heller
478 So. 2d 1159 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Leaseco, Inc. v. Bartlett
257 So. 2d 629 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Hendrickson
212 So. 2d 901 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Williams
199 So. 2d 469 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1967)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Braz
196 So. 2d 449 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
196 So. 2d 109, 1967 Fla. LEXIS 3948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-coast-line-railroad-v-braz-fla-1967.