MYRTLE GROVE, INC. D/B/A THREE OAK MANOR, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
IRMA S. TAYLOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOHN TAYLOR, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Myrtle Grove appeals a negligence judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages to Irma Taylor. The court reverses the trial court's order granting a new trial on punitive damages, holding that gross negligence alone cannot support punitive damages in Florida—the conduct must rise to the level required for a manslaughter conviction.
The court held that gross negligence alone is insufficient to support punitive damages in Florida. Punitive damages in negligence actions require conduct corresponding to that needed to sustain a manslaughter conviction. The trial court erred in granting a new trial instead of directing a verdict in Myrtle Grove's favor on the punitive damages claim.
[1] An award of punitive damages in a negligence action requires conduct that corresponds to that required to sustain a conviction for manslaughter.
[2] Gross negligence, without more, is insufficient to support an award of punitive damages in a negligence action.
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“To support an award of punitive damages in a negligence action, the conduct must correspond to that required to sustain a conviction for manslaughter.”
Establishes the legal standard for punitive damages in Florida negligence cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIrma Taylor sustained injuries and brought a negligence action against Myrtle Grove, Inc. (Three Oak Manor). A jury found Myrtle Grove liable and awar…
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 Gross Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Myrtle Grove, Inc., appeals a final judgment in a negligence action, awarding compensatory and punitive damages on account of injuries sustained by Irma Taylor. John Taylor, as guardian ad litem of Irma Taylor, cross appeals. We conclude that only one of the numerous issues raised by the parties merits discussion.
The trial court permitted Taylor’s demand for punitive, as well as compensatory, damages to be decided by the jury, denying Myrtle Grove’s motion for a directed verdict on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a demand for punitive damages. The jury found in Taylor’s favor, and awarded $100,-000.00 in punitive damages, in addition to $76,100.00 in compensatory damages. (The jury also found Taylor 5-percent comparatively negligent.)
Myrtle Grove filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial, arguing (among other things) that the evidence had been legally insufficient to support a demand for punitive damages. Although initially expressing concern about the sufficiency of the evidence to support such a demand, the trial court ultimately denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. However, it granted the alternative motion for a new trial on the issue of punitive damages only, entering judgment for Tay lor pursuant to the jury’s verdict as to compensatory damages. On appeal, Myrtle Grove argues that the trial court should have directed a verdict in its favor on the demand for punitive damages, because the evidence was legally insufficient to support such a demand. We agree.
To support an award of punitive damages in a negligence action, the conduct must correspond to that required to sustain a conviction for manslaughter. E.g., White Construction Co. v. Dupont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.1984); Carraway v. Revell, 116 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1959). Here, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Taylor, a reasonable jury could conclude that Myrtle Grove had been grossly negligent. However, gross negligence will not support an award of punitive damages. Chrysler Corp. v. Wolmer, 499 So. 2d 823 (Fla.1986); Como Oil Co. v. O’Loughlin, 466 So. 2d 1061 (Fla.1985). The evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support the award of punitive damages. Accordingly, the trial court should have granted Myrtle Grove’s motion for a directed verdict, and it was error to order a new trial instead.
We reverse the grant of a new trial on the demand for punitive damages, and remand with directions that the trial court enter judgment in favor of Myrtle Grove on that issue. In all other respects, we affirm.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
ERVIN, BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
IBP, Inc. v. Hady Enters., Inc., 267 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (N.D. Fla. 2002)…amages. 33 . Hady Enterprises points the Court to a series of Florida cases that hold that punitive damages may only be awarded when there has been a showing of "willful or wanton misconduct” (Doc. 162, p. 6-7). Myrtle Grove v. Taylor, 614 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Ten Assocs. v. Brunson, 492 So.2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). However, the cases provided by Hady Enterprises were decided before the Florida legislature's amendment of Section 768.72, which allows recovery of punit…
Authorities Cited
- Royal Carraway v. Revell, 116 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1959)
- White Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1984)
- Como OIL Co., Inc. v. Celestine O'Loughlin, 466 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1985)
- Chrysler Corp. v. Wolmer, 499 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1986)