Brown v. CaldwellBrown v. Caldwell
In this negligence suit the trial judge awarded judgment of $15,000.00 to appellee, Margaret Cоlville, as mother and next friend of Michelle Caldwell, for future medical expenses to be incurred by the dаughter after reaching majority. Appellants, who were defendants below, contend that this award was in еrror because the daughter‘s claim for future medical expense was adjudicated earlier in thе case when the daughter received a judgment for $50,000.00, which has been paid and satisfied; and further, becаuse the mother‘s claim for medical expenses incurred in behalf of her daughter is limited to those exрenses incurred during the daughter‘s minority. We agree that the judgment cannot be sustained under the circumstances presented and reverse.
Michelle Caldwell, a minor, suing by her mother and next friend, Margaret Colville, received a jury verdict of $50,000.00 for personal injuries. Margaret Colville, suing individually in the same case, sought recоvery
In post-trial proceedings, the trial judge found that the jury‘s verdict denying recovery to the mother for medical expenses was contrary to the court‘s instructions. Consequently, the court ordered: “That the plaintiff, Margaret Colville, a parent of Michelle Caldwell, is granted a new trial on the sole issue of damаges for medical expenses of her injured daughter.” The motion for new trial by plaintiff-appellee was in all other respects denied. Subsequently, appellants paid the $50,000.00 judgment in favor of Michelle Caldwell, and received a satisfaction of judgment.
Prior to the new trial on Margaret Colville‘s claim, but aftеr the satisfaction of Michelle‘s judgment, another trial judge (successor to the initial trial judge) entered an order in which he ruled, over appellants’ objections, that upon the new trial Margaret Colville would be entitled to recover, for the benefit of the plaintiff, Michelle Caldwell, all medical expenses “reasonably to be incurred by Michelle Caldwell after she reaches legal age in addition to the medical expenses incurred by the minor child prior to her attaining majority ...,” and loss of the child‘s services prior to reaching majority. The trial judge, who heard and considered the evidence without a jury, rеndered judgment for Margaret Colville, which provided for recovery of $3,017.00 as medical expenses аnd loss of services during her daughter‘s minority, and recovery of $15,000.00 by “Margaret Colville, as the mother and next friend оf Michelle Caldwell, ... for the use and benefit of Michelle Caldwell for future medical expenses reаsonably to be incurred by Michelle Caldwell after attaining her majority.”
Appellants do not contest the award of $3,017.00; but they contend the award of $15,000.00 for future medical was erroneous as a matter of law. Wе agree. A parent can only recover his pecuniary loss as a result of injury to his minor child. City Stores Company v. Langer, 308 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975), appeal dismissed 312 So.2d 758 (La.). The pаrent‘s right of action is totally independent of any action by the child. Although the child must sue by his “next friend” (if there is no guardian or other like fiduciary,
Any claim for future medical incurred beyond the majority of the minor plaintiff was an element of damages recoverable by the minor, albeit by her next friend, her mother. The order fоr new trial entered prior to the satisfaction of Michelle‘s judgment was limited to the medical expense claims of the mother, which could include only those expenditures incurred in behalf of her daughter during hеr minority. See Florida Standard Jury Instructions 6.2c, “Medical expenses: ... care and treatment of claimant‘s minor child ...,” and “care and treatment of minor claimant after reaching majority ... .” The general rule is that the obligation of a parent for support and care of a minor child ceases at majority. Although an exception to this general rule may arise when the child is, from physical or mental deficiencies, unable to support himself, Perla v. Perla, 58 So.2d 689 (Fla. 1952), there is no showing in this case that such a burden has been lawfully imposed upon appellee. Cf. Fincham v. Levin, 155 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). To the contrary, at the time of the new trial Michelle was 20 years of age, and had been married for two years. Furthermore, there
We are cognizant of appellant‘s argument that errors were made in the jury instructions in the first trial. However, any such errors were waived by the failure to appeal, and by satisfaction of Michelle‘s judgment.
REVERSED with directions to enter modified judgment striking the award of $15,000.00.
ERVIN and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.