Too many plaintiffs’ lawyers believe all negligence cases warrant punitive damages, and may have believed their burden of proof and the threshold lessened after Perlmutter. Not so fast, says the Third DCA.
The court reversed an order permitting a punitive-damages claim arising from a minor rear-end collision involving a shuttle-bus driver who allegedly lacked a required passenger endorsement. The court’s first rationale was that the licensing deficiency was not the relevant “conduct” for purposes of section 768.72. Instead, the relevant conduct was the driver’s operation of the vehicle, and the evidence showed only an ordinary rear-end collision caused by a failure to brake in time.
The court’s second major rationale was the absence of a nexus between the alleged misconduct and the plaintiffs’ injuries. Even assuming the driver lacked the required endorsement, the plaintiffs offered no evidence that the deficiency contributed to the collision. The driver held a valid commercial driver’s license, there was no evidence that the endorsement issue impaired the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle, and the accident resulted from a routine failure to brake in time.
The Third DCA found there was a failure of the Plaintiff to proffer evidence demonstrating the specific intent required for intentional misconduct or the conscious disregard necessary for gross negligence – a licensing deficiency alone does not support an assertion of punitive damages.
Most importantly, the court used the detailed 14 page opinion to reinforce the trial court’s gatekeeping role under Section 768.72, and stressed the need for trial courts to understand the proper gatekeeping role when reviewing proffers, and understanding the burden of proof before allowing the assertion of punitive damages. The court noted that punitive-damages claims dramatically alter litigation by opening the door to financial-worth discovery and exposing defendants to potentially uninsured liability. Because of those consequences, trial courts must carefully screen punitive-damages proffers and permit such claims only when the evidence could support a finding of truly egregious misconduct.
For additional information, please contact Ashley Landrum, alandrum@national-law.com.