Randall v. Walt Disney World Co.
140 So. 3d 1118
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2006 Barry Randall was allegedly injured on a Walt Disney World roller coaster; he and his wife Margaret Randall sued Disney and Walt Disney Imagineering in 2008, including a loss-of-consortium claim by Margaret.
- Randall died in 2010 while the personal-injury suit was pending; cause of death was disputed and may have been unrelated to the ride.
- Margaret filed a suggestion of death in 2011 but did not move within 90 days under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.260 to substitute herself as personal representative; the trial court dismissed Randall’s personal-injury claim for abatement and also dismissed Margaret’s loss-of-consortium claim with prejudice.
- Margaret moved for rehearing, arguing her loss-of-consortium claim survives the spouse’s death; the trial court denied rehearing and she appealed.
- The Fifth District affirmed dismissal of the personal-injury action for failure to substitute, but reversed the dismissal of the loss-of-consortium claim, holding that such claims survive the death of the injured spouse and remanded for reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a surviving spouse’s loss-of-consortium claim survives the death of the injured spouse | Randall: Loss-of-consortium is a separate, direct cause of action that survives the spouse’s death and thus should remain pending | Disney: Loss-of-consortium should not survive because wrongful-death statutory remedies cover post-death consortium losses and derivative claims cannot exist absent the primary action | The court reaffirmed Taylor: loss-of-consortium survives the death of the injured spouse; trial court’s dismissal of that claim reversed and remanded |
| Whether the pending personal-injury action should have been dismissed after death without substitution | Randall: (implicit) substitution should have been sought to preserve the claim | Disney: Plaintiff failed to timely substitute under Rule 1.260, so personal-injury action properly abated | Affirmed dismissal of the personal-injury action for failure to substitute within the rule’s timeframe |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Orlando Clinic, 555 So.2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (held loss-of-consortium survives the death of the injured spouse)
- ACandS, Inc. v. Redd, 703 So.2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (held loss-of-consortium does not survive the injured spouse’s death; certified conflict with Fifth DCA)
- Capone v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 116 So.3d 363 (Fla. 2013) (held wrongful-death statute does not require dismissal of pending personal-injury action; disapproved Taylor to the extent inconsistent)
- Gates v. Foley, 247 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1971) (recognized loss-of-consortium as compensable injury to the marital relationship)
- Resmondo v. Int’l Builders of Fla., Inc., 265 So.2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) (spouse’s consortium claim survives even where injured spouse settled without fault finding)
- Ryter v. Brennan, 291 So.2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (stated the wife owns the consortium cause of action in her own name)
- Busby v. Winn & Lovett Miami, Inc., 80 So.2d 675 (Fla. 1955) (discussed spouse’s separate consortium action)
- Orange Cnty. v. Piper, 523 So.2d 196 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (described loss-of-consortium as a separate, direct cause of action belonging to the spouse)