SHANDS TEACHING HOSP. & CLINICS v. Smith
11 Fla. L. Weekly 81, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 6033, 480 So. 2d 1366 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida common law, a wife is not liable for her husband's medical necessaries unless she has contractually agreed to pay for them. The judicial expansion of the common law doctrine of necessaries to create a new, reciprocal liability for wives is a function reserved for the legislature, not the courts.
Facts:
- Rebecca Smith's husband received medical services from Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc.
- The husband incurred medical bills for these services.
- The husband entered into an agreement with the hospital, binding himself as a guarantor for all charges not paid by his insurance.
- Rebecca Smith never signed an agreement or otherwise consented in writing to pay for the medical services provided to her husband.
- Rebecca Smith's husband is now deceased.
Procedural Posture:
- Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. filed a complaint against Rebecca Smith in a Florida trial court, seeking payment for medical bills incurred by her deceased husband.
- The trial court dismissed the hospital's complaint.
- In its order, the trial court acknowledged contrary authority from other appellate districts but found that a wife can only be held responsible for her husband's medical bills by contract.
- Shands Teaching Hospital, as appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. Rebecca Smith is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the common law doctrine of necessaries, which traditionally holds a husband liable for his wife's necessaries, extend to make a wife liable for her husband's medical expenses in the absence of a contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the common law doctrine of necessaries does not extend to make a wife liable for her husband's medical expenses without a contract. Although other district courts have held otherwise, this court finds that the common law imposes no liability on a wife for the necessaries of her husband, and creating such liability can only be done by contract. The court reasoned that in the absence of constitutional or statutory authority reflecting a change in established law, district courts of appeal do not have the prerogative to overrule controlling precedent or create new liabilities. Changing this common law rule is a matter for legislative concern, not judicial action.
Concurring - Barfield, J.
No, a wife cannot be held liable for her husband's medical expenses absent a contract, statute, or existing common law rule. Expanding the common law to create a new cause of action against wives is a usurpation of the legislative function. The concurring opinion argues that the courts in Manatee and Parkway engaged in improper judicial activism by creating new liabilities based on policy preferences. It suggests that modern family support statutes have likely supplanted the common law doctrine of necessaries entirely. The proper role of the judiciary is to interpret law or abrogate common law rules that are inconsistent with constitutions or statutes, not to create new law based on perceived societal trends, which is the role of the legislature.
Analysis:
This decision creates a direct conflict among Florida's intermediate appellate courts regarding the modern applicability of the gender-based common law doctrine of necessaries. It champions a philosophy of judicial restraint, arguing that significant changes to long-standing common law, especially those creating new financial liabilities, are policy decisions that belong to the legislative branch. By certifying conflict with the Second and Third District Courts of Appeal, the court has teed up the issue for the Florida Supreme Court to resolve, forcing a statewide determination on spousal liability for necessaries and the proper role of the judiciary in evolving common law.
