MERCURY MOTOR EXPRESS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA LYNN SMITH, ETC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case reviews whether a corporate employer can be held liable for punitive damages due to an employee's willful and wanton misconduct while operating under the company's permit. The court affirmed the punitive damage award, upholding Florida's majority rule on employer liability for employee actions.
Yes, a corporate employer can be liable for punitive damages when its employee, acting within the scope of employment, engages in willful and wanton misconduct. The court found no reversible error in the proceedings below.
[1] A corporate employer may be liable for punitive damages when its employee, acting within the scope of employment, engages in willful and wanton misconduct.
[2] An employer holding an Interstate Commerce Commission permit can be liable for punitive damages arising from an employee's willful and wanton misconduct while operating a…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“whether a corporate employer and Interstate Commerce Commission permit holder can be liable in punitive damages for the willful and wanton misconduct of its employee while acting within the scope of his employment and operating a tractor and trailer leased by the corporate employer and operated under its permit.”
This quote defines the central legal issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employee, while intoxicated and operating a tractor-trailer leased by his employer and under its ICC permit, caused a fatal accident. The employee …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Willful And Wanton Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, defendant below, brings this appeal from a final judgment against it in a wrongful death action. The final judgment awarded appellee, plaintiff below, $400,000 compensatory and $250,000 punitive damages. Appellant paid the compensatory damage award and has appealed only the punitive damage portion of the final judgment.
Appellant raises two points on appeal, both of which raise the same legal issue. The issue presented is whether a corporate employer and Interstate Commerce Commission permit holder can be liable in punitive damages for the willful and wanton misconduct of its employee while acting within the scope of his employment and operating a tractor and trailer leased by the corporate employer and operated under its permit. In this case, the employee was operating the tractor and trailer while intoxicated and, as a result, ran off the road and killed David J. Faircloth, Jr. Subsequently, the employee driver was charged and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The case was both pleaded and submitted to the jury on the theory that this issue could be decided in the affirmative. Florida has long followed the majority rule that a jury may assess punitive damages against a corporate employer when its employee, acting within the scope of his employment, has been guilty of willful and wanton misconduct, such as in this case. See, e. g., Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978); Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1977); Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214 (1936); Joab, Inc. v. Thrall, 245 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); and Wackenhut Corp. v. Greene, 238 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).
Compare Simmons v. King, 478 F. 2d 857 (5th Cir. 1973), and Wellman v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 496 F. 2d 131 (8th Cir. 1979).
But see Alexander v. Alterman Transport Lines, 350 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Based upon the principles set forth in these cases, we are of the opinion that appellant has failed to show any reversible error in the proceedings below.
Accordingly, the final judgment appealed is affirmed. •
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1981)…ALDERMAN, Justice. We accept jurisdiction of this case because the decision of the district court, reported at 372 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), conflicts with Alexander v. Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., 350 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Richard Welch, an employee of the petitioner, Mercury Motors Express, while driving a tractor-trailer for his employer, lost contro…
-
E. AIR Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 438 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…law in this district was that “a jury may assess punitive damages against a corporate employer when its employee, acting within the scope of his employment, has been guilty of willful and wanton misconduct, ...” Mercury Motor Express, Inc. v. Smith, 372 So. 2d 116, 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). But where a change in the state of the law occurs between trial and appeal, we are bound to apply the law as it exists at the time of appeal. Hendeles v. Sanford Auto Auction, Inc., 364 So. 2d 467 (Fla.1978); Florida East Co…
-
Hooper Alexander, III v. Alterman Transp. Lines, Inc., 387 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…rning this case. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. BOOTH and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., specially concurs with opinion. . A directly contrary view has been applied by the Third District in Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 372 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308 (Fla. 1936)
- Dorthy Bould and Edward Simonson, Jr. v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977)
- Simmons v. King, 478 F.2d 857 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Joab, Inc. v. Thrall, 245 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Hooper Alexander, III v. Alterman Transp. Lines, Inc., 350 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Wellman v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 496 F.2d 131 (8th Cir. 1974)
- Consol. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ramy, 238 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)