Title: Shor v. Paoli

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

353 So. 2d 825 (1977)
Minnie Berger SHOR, and Allstate Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Petitioners,
v.
Gerald PAOLI, Sweet & Blossom, Inc., and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Respondents.
No. 51915.

Supreme Court of Florida.
November 17, 1977.
Rehearing Denied January 27, 1978.
Marjorie D. Gadarian, of Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for petitioners.
Henry Burnett, of Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Knight, Miami, for respondents.
KARL, Justice.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari granted to review the *826 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:
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:
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.