Yordon v. Savage
279 So. 2d 844 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cause of action for injuries to a minor child belongs to both parents equally, and a common law rule that permits only the father to sue for such damages violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the state and federal constitutions by discriminating on the basis of sex.
Facts:
- Dorothy L. Savage, a licensed pediatrician, provided medical treatment to the minor child, Christopher Yordon.
- Following the treatment, Christopher Yordon allegedly became blind and suffered severe neurological damage, rendering him 'incapable of sensation, perception, motor control and reason.'
- The child's parents, Stephen A. Yordan and Maryanne Yordon, incurred medical expenses and suffered other losses, including the loss of their child's services and mental pain and anguish.
- Both Stephen A. Yordan and Maryanne Yordon sought to recover damages for these injuries and losses by joining as plaintiffs in a lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher Yordon (a minor), Stephen A. Yordan (father), and Maryanne Yordon (mother) filed a lawsuit against Dorothy L. Savage in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida, a state trial court.
- Savage filed a motion to strike Maryanne Yordon from the complaint, arguing she was an improper party to the action.
- The trial court granted the motion, struck Maryanne Yordon as a party plaintiff, and dismissed her cause of action with prejudice.
- The trial court specifically ruled that denying Maryanne Yordon the right to be a plaintiff did not violate her constitutional rights to equal protection or due process.
- The Yordons, as appellants, filed a direct appeal of the trial court's order to the Supreme Court of Florida.
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 a common law rule that denies a mother the right to be a party plaintiff in a lawsuit to recover damages for injuries to her minor child, while granting that right to the father, violate the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Florida and United States Constitutions?
Opinions:
Majority - Boyd, J.
Yes. A rule that grants a cause of action to one parent for injury to a child but denies it to the other based on sex violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. The cause of action for injury to an unemancipated minor child is available to either the father, the mother, or to both parents together. The Florida and U.S. Constitutions mandate that all natural persons are equal before the law and shall not be denied equal protection. Anachronistic common law rules that treat women as inferior to men are no longer valid, reflecting a societal and legal evolution toward complete equality between the sexes. Both lawful parents are necessary parties to such a suit, and the fact-finder shall apportion any damage award between them as is just.
Dissenting - Dekle, J.
No. The traditional rule does not violate constitutional due process or equal protection because the mother's right to recovery is procedurally provided for through the father's suit on behalf of the family unit. The mother's right is fully protected by a single parent's suit, and the expansion of women's rights has pertained to their separate, personal rights, not their role within the family. This change is a procedural matter best addressed by legislative enactment or the court's rule-making powers, not judicial fiat. Furthermore, the majority's new rule requiring a jury to apportion damages between the parents lacks reasonable standards and will lead to confusion.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for abolishing a common law rule rooted in coverture, which treated the father as the sole legal representative of the family unit. By extending the right to sue for a child's injuries to mothers, the court aligned Florida tort law with modern constitutional principles of equal protection, eliminating a blatant form of sex-based discrimination. The ruling establishes that both parents have an equal and independent legal interest in their child's welfare and the right to seek redress for injuries. This precedent reinforces the broader legal trend of dismantling gender-based distinctions and recognizing married women as individuals with rights equal to their husbands.
