NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL MCCOLLOUGH, RESPONDENT
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.
The appellate court reviewed an order allowing a plaintiff to seek punitive damages against a university. The court granted the university's petition, finding that the plaintiff had not alleged sufficient independent fault on the university's part to hold it vicariously liable for punitive damages based on its employees' actions.
No, a corporate employer cannot be vicariously liable for punitive damages for the wanton and willful acts of its employee unless there is some independent fault on the part of the employer.
[1] A corporate employer cannot be held vicariously liable for punitive damages based solely on the wanton and willful acts of its employee; independent fault on the part of…
[2] Independent fault of a corporate employer, necessary for vicarious liability for punitive damages, need not itself be wanton and willful.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In order for a corporate employer to be vicariously liable for punitive damages for the wanton and willful acts of its employee, there must be some independent fault on the part of the employer, though that fault need not also be wanton and willful.”
Establishes the legal standard for corporate vicarious liability for punitive damages.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA plaintiff sued Nova Southeastern University and its security officers for intentional torts. The plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to add a pra…
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 Intentional Tort cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Nova Southeastern University, Inc. and three individuals it employed as security officers petitioned for certiorari relief from an order of the trial court granting the plaintiffs motion to add a prayer for punitive relief to his complaint against them for various intentional torts stemming from the security officers’ detaining him in Nova’s parking lot one night at approximately 3:30 a.m. We previously dismissed the petition as it pertained to the individual petitioners, concluding that the trial court based its determination on evidence in the record that it found provided a reasonable basis for the recovery of such damages, see Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518, 519 (Fla.1995), although no such evidence was presented at the hearing on the motion, see Eugene J. Strasser, M.D., P.A. v. Bose Yalamanchi, M.D., P.A., 677 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
We grant the petition, however, as to Nova. The third amended complaint included counts against Nova for false arrest and imprisonment and for malicious prosecution, both predicating Nova’s liability on a theory of respondeat superior. No independent fault on Nova’s part was alleged. In order for a corporate employer to be vicariously liable for punitive damages for the wanton and willful acts of its employee, there must be some independent fault on the part of the employer, though that fault need not also be wanton and willful. Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1981). Compare Schropp v. Crown Eurocars, Inc., 654 So. 2d 1158, 1160-61 (Fla.1995) (recognizing corporation may be held directly liable for intentional acts of a managing agent or person holding policy-making position). Given the state of the pleadings, we conclude that no evidence in the record could have provided a reasonable basis for the recovery of punitive damages against Nova.
Therefore, we quash that part of the trial court’s order which granted MeCollough’s motion to add a prayer for punitive damages against Nova.
DELL, WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ortega v. Silva, 712 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…a writ of common law certiorari to review an order allowing a claim for punitive damages. See Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Petitioner is mistaken in reading our decision in Nova Southeastern University v. McCollough, 693 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), to allow certiorari jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence to allow a claim for punitive damages. In Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1995), the court held: “We conclude that appellate courts do…
-
Carnival Corp. v. Iscoa, 922 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…punitive damages as part of a claim in which such exemplary damages are unavailable as a matter of law, is tantamount to allowing them without determining whether there is an evidentiary basis for them”); Nova Southeastern University v. McCollough, 693 So. 2d 1125, 1125-26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (granting certiorari and quashing an order granting leave to amend to add a prayer for punitive damages concluding that “no evidence in the record could have provided a reasonable basis for the recovery of’ such damages…
-
McGUIRE, Woods, Battle & Boothe, L.L.P. v. Hollfelder, 771 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…equirements of statute in deciding the threshold question of plaintiffs right to make a claim for punitive damages, but not to review the trial court’s decision on the adequacy of the evidence. Here, as in Nova Southeastern University v. McCollough, 693 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), petitioners argue they are not liable for punitive damages as a matter of law. We agree with the Fourth District’s conclusion in Nova, as clarified in Ortega v. Silva, 712 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and conclude the trial…
Authorities Cited
- Mercury Motors Express, Inc. v. Smith, 393 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 1981)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995)
- Schropp v. Crown Eurocars, Inc., 654 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1995)
- Emmett Black v. State, 677 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)