Case Name: Edward S. QUEST et al., Appellants, v. Leon JOSEPH, etc. et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1980-05-20
Citations: 392 So. 2d 256
Docket Number: No. 78-2090
Parties: Edward S. QUEST et al., Appellants, v. Leon JOSEPH, etc. et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 392
Pages: 256–262

Head Matter:
Edward S. QUEST et al., Appellants, v. Leon JOSEPH, etc. et al., Appellees.
No. 78-2090.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 20, 1980.
On Rehearing Jan. 7, 1981.
Magill, Sevier & Reid and Kevin P. O’Connor, Miami, for appellants.
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Hawkesworth & Sehmick, Miami, for appellees.
Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Edward Quest, appeals an adverse final judgment and the withholding of execution of judgment on his third party claim for contribution in an action for damages arising out of a motor vehicle pedestrian accident.
On the day in question, plaintiff Daren Joseph, a minor, was riding a tricycle (known as a Big Wheel) down a slight incline of the driveway at his home and into the street, at which time he was struck by a vehicle owned by Edward Quest and driven by his wife, Marion. Leon Joseph, individually and on behalf of Daren, sued Quest, his wife, and their liability insurer for damages as a result of the accident. Eyewitness testimony was conflicting as to whether Daren darted out of the driveway into the path of the oncoming Quest vehicle or whether he had been in the street for a number of seconds before the accident. Nevertheless, it was uncontroverted that Daren's mother knew he was riding his Big Wheel down the driveway and into the street. Quest alleged that Daren's mother was negligent in her supervision and filed a third party complaint for contribution against her. The cause was tried by jury which apportioned the negligence amongst the parties as follows:
Leon Joseph 10%
Daren Joseph 10%
Marion Quest 55%
Ellen Joseph 25%
In addition, the jury assessed Daren Joseph's total damages at $150,000 and those of his father, Leon, at $17,000. The trial court entered final judgment accordingly awarding Daren the net sum of $135,000, his father, Leon, $13,600 and Quest, on his third party complaint, $37,150. However, execution on the $37,150 judgment was stayed until Quest paid the $135,000 and $13,600 judgments. Quest appeals and alleges that the court (1) improperly apportioned the jury verdict, and (2) should have permitted a reduction or set-off of the award against him in the main claim by that amount he recovered on his third party claim against Ellen Joseph. Leon Joseph cross-appeals and urges as error the entry of judgment against his wife, Ellen, for contribution.
The dispositive issue in the case at bar is that presented on cross-appeal, whether or not a right of contribution existed from Ellen Joseph, the mother of the minor child Daren.
Joseph argues that his wife Ellen is immune from liability by virtue of the family immunity doctrine and therefore cannot be considered a joint tortfeasor from whom Quest is entitled to contribution. See 3-M Elec. Corp. v. Vigoa, 369 So.2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Nevertheless, our Supreme Court in Shor v. Paoli, 353 So.2d 825 (Fla.1978), held that the common law doctrine of interspousal immunity does not prevent a tortfeasor from seeking contribution from another tortfeasor under the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors' Act (Section 768.31, Florida Statutes [1975]) even though the other tortfeasor is the spouse of the successful plaintiff. The court in Shor, supra, reasoned as follows:
"The doctrine of family or interspousal immunity is based on the desirability of the preservation of the family unit. The law of contribution of joint tortfeasors is meant to apportion the responsibility to pay innocent injured third parties between or among those causing the injury. "In the case at bar it was determined that both Paoli and Shor caused the injury. Shor's husband collected 100% of his damages from Paoli. To say that Shor doesn't have to contribute and account for her wrongdoing would be unfair to Paoli and a windfall to Shor. This is not a case where the husband sued the wife on account of her negligence so we are not doing any real damage to the doctrine. This is a case where the joint tortfeasor sued the joint tortfeasor and we are ruling in support of that statute." . 353 So.2d at 826
Likewise, the instant case does not present a situation where the minor Daren Joseph is suing his mother Ellen for negligence or Leon is suing Ellen as his wife. She as well as Quest was found by the jury to have been negligent, thus having caused Daren's injuries. To hold that Ellen does not have to contribute and account for her wrongdoing would be unfair to Quest and a'windfall to Ellen. Under the facts of this case we find that Quest is entitled to contribution and judgment was properly entered in his favor on his third party complaint. To the extent that 3-M Elec. Corp. v. Vigoa, 369 So.2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), supra, (which we believe is distinguishable on the facts) is inconsistent with the present holding, we hereby recede from the holding in 3-M Elec. Corp. We further note that the 3-M Elec. Corp. case relied upon Mieure v. Moore, 330 So.2d 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) which was overruled by Shor v. Paoli, 353 So.2d 825 (Fla.1978), supra, insofar as the holdings were inconsistent. Thus, we find no reversible error has been presented by Josephs on cross-appeal.
We next considered Quest's arguments on appeal that the trial court improperly apportioned the jury verdict and erred in failing to permit a reduction in the judgment against him.
Quest having admitted that the above arguments have been decided adversely to his position, we find no merit therein. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Asusta, 359 So.2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Moore v. St. Cloud Utilities, 337 So.2d 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
For the reasons stated, the judgments on the complaint and cross-complaint are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Before HUBBART, C. J., and BARK-DULL, HENDRY, SCHWARTZ, NESBITT, BASKIN and PEARSON, JJ.
. This cause came on upon this Court's Motion for Entry of Judgment upon the jury verdict. The jury awarded the plaintiff, Daren Joseph, a minor, the sum of $150,000 and found said minor to be guilty of 10% negligence. The jury further stated the mother of the minor plaintiff was guilty of 25% negligence. The Court finds that the minor plaintiff is entitled to recover $150,000 less 10% for his own negligence and that the father of the minor plaintiff is entitled to recover $17,000 less 10% for the minor plaintiffs negligence and 10% for his own negligence. The Court further finds that the defendants Edward S. Quest, Marion Hearl Quest and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company are entitled to Judgment against the minor plaintiffs mother for 25% of the total Judgment entered against the said defendants and that said sum is not a reduction or offset as to the minor plaintiffs claim or the minor plaintiffs father's claim.
. By the amount he was awarded on his third party complaint for contribution.