Conduct to Support Punitive Damages
When should punitive damages be considered? Stated differently, when does the opposing party’s conduct rise up to the level to support an amendment to a complaint to include punitive damages? How about this discussion from a recent case as to the conduct to support punitive damages:
“[L]ong-established precedent dictates that actions which deserve punitive sanctions involve outrageous conduct, malicious motive, or wrongful intention.” William Dorsky Assocs. v. Highlands Cnty. Title & Guar. Land Co., 528 So. 2d 411, 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). “[P]unitive damages are reserved for truly ‘culpable conduct,’ ” where the conduct is “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree . . . [that] the facts [of the case] to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, ‘Outrageous!’ ” Cleveland Clinic Fla. Health Sys. Nonprofit Corp. v. Oriolo, 357 So. 3d 703, 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (citation omitted); see also Cable News Network, Inc. v. Black, 374 So. 3d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (recognizing that to state a claim for punitive damages, the plaintiff had to proffer a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages).
“[T]he required level of negligence for punitive damages is equivalent to the conduct involved in criminal manslaughter.” Valladares v. Bank of Am. Corp., 197 So. 3d 1, 11 (Fla. 2016). The Florida Supreme Court has discussed the required level of proof to demonstrate “culpable negligence” for manslaughter or to authorize the recovery of punitive damages as follows:
[T]o authorize the recovery of exemplary or punitive damages, the negligence complained of must be of “a gross and flagrant character, evincing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or there is that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or that reckless indifference to the rights of others which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them.”
Smith v. State, 65 So. 2d 303, 305 (Fla. 1953) (citation omitted).
Robertson v. Antoine, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D2496a (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
Importantly, a party asserting punitive damages MUST PROPERLY comply with Florida Statute s. 768.72. This statute must be complied with in furtherance of trying to add punitive damages into the mix.
Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.
