Ripple v. CBS Corp.
Resolving a conflict between the Fourth District (Kelly/Ripple) and the Fifth District (Domino's Pizza v. Wiederhold), the Florida Supreme Court held that a spouse who married the decedent after the onset of the injury that caused death is still a "surviving spouse" entitled to recover loss-of-companionship and mental pain and suffering damages under section 768.21(2) of the Wrongful Death Act. The Court further held that the common law "marriage before injury" rule does not bar such recovery, quashing the Fourth District's contrary decision.
Key facts
- Ripple, the surviving spouse of a decedent who died from an injury, sought damages for loss of companionship and mental pain and suffering under the Wrongful Death Act; Ripple had married the decedent after the injury occurred but before the decedent's death.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal applied a common law 'marriage before injury' rule and held that Ripple could not recover noneconomic damages because the marriage postdated the injury, creating a conflict with Fifth District precedent in Domino's Pizza v. Wiederhold.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision definitively resolves a district conflict that had governed asbestos and other latent-injury wrongful death cases, expanding the class of spouses who may recover noneconomic survivor damages and… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.