MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
DENIS CARDOSO, 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.
Cardoso sued Miami-Dade County for eighteen arrests while lawfully peddling flowers with a valid license, claiming false arrest and negligent training. The jury awarded him damages on eight false arrest claims and a negligent supervision claim, but the appellate court reversed the negligence award under the impact rule and remanded for a new trial on damages for the false arrest claims.
The court reversed the negligence damages award because Cardoso failed to satisfy the impact rule requiring physical injury in negligence cases. The court remanded for a new trial on damages only for the eight successful false arrest claims, as the negligence award may have tainted the jury's false arrest award. All other trial court rulings were affirmed.
[1] A claim for negligent training and supervision may require a showing of physical impact or injury to recover damages.
[2] A jury's award of damages for false arrest claims may be affected by a vacated award for negligence, necessitating a new trial on damages for the false arrest claims.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Based on the impact rule, we reverse the award for damages relating to Cardoso's count for negligent training and supervision.”
The court's holding that the negligence damages must be reversed because no physical impact or injury was established.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBetween September 1996 and July 1999, Denis Cardoso was arrested eighteen times by various police officers for peddling flowers near a cemetery in Mia…
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 Impact Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
CORTINAS, Judge.
Between September 1996 and July 1999, Denis Cardoso (“Cardoso”) was arrested by various police officers eighteen (18) times for peddling flowers out of his truck near a cemetery in Miami, Florida. It is undisputed that Cardoso had a peddler’s license since 1988, but did not have a certificate of use and occupancy.
Cardoso filed a complaint against Miami-Dade County (“County”), asserting eighteen (18) counts of false arrest and/or imprisonment, one count of negligent training and supervision, and one count based upon 43 U.S.C. § 1983 liability.1 After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Cardoso and awarded him $77,222 as to the negligent supervision and training claim, which was reduced to $55,599.84 after calculating Cardoso’s comparative negligence. The jury also returned a verdict in favor of Cardoso on eight (8) of his false arrest and/or imprisonment claims, awarding him a total $22,000 for those claims.
The County filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court ultimately denied. The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Cardo-so in the total amount of $77,599.84. The trial court also awarded Cardoso $5,000 as taxable costs. The County appeals from (1) the final judgment awarding Cardoso $77,599.84, (2) the order granting Cardoso $5,000 as taxable costs, and (3) the order denying the County’s motion for new trial and/or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
As one of its main contentions on appeal, the County claims that the trial court erred in awarding Cardoso damages based on negligence, as he failed to show impact or physical injury. Based on the impact rule, we reverse the award for damages relating to Cardoso’s count for negligent training and supervision. See R.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., 652 So. 2d 360 (Fla.1995); School Bd. Of Miami-Dade County, Florida v. Trujillo, 906 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Ruttger Hotel Corp. v. Wagner, 691 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Jordan v. Equity Props. and Dev. Co., 661 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Since we have vacated the jury’s damage award relating to negligence, which may have affected the jury’s award for Cardo-so’s false arrest claims, we remand for a new trial on damages only as to Cardoso’s eight (8) successful false arrest and/or imprisonment claims.
We affirm the trial court’s rulings on all other issues on appeal.
Reversed and remanded in part; affirmed in part.
WELLS, J., concurs.
. The County removed the case to federal district court. While the case was in the federal court, Cardoso filed an amended complaint. The County filed a motion for sum-maiy judgment in the federal court as to the § 1983 count, which the federal district court granted. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and remanded the false arrest and negligence claims to state court. Cardoso v. Miami-Dade County, 54 Fed.Appx. 685 (11th Cir.2002).
SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge
(specially concurring).
While I agree with the result, I would not base the elimination of the $77,222 award on the “impact” doctrine, the applicability of which is — at best, and to say the least — highly problematic. See Rowell v. Holt, 850 So. 2d 474, 478 n. 1 (Fla.2003); Holt v. Rowell, 798 So. 2d 767, 772 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), approved in part and quashed in part, 850 So. 2d 474 (Fla.2003).
Instead, I believe that the award is unsustainable because “negligent training” is not, as a matter of law, a distinct theory of liability for compensatory damages which can form the basis of a separate award. See Muzzio v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 799 So. 2d 272, 274-75 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), review denied, 817 So. 2d 848 (Fla.2002); Petrik v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 379 So. 2d 1287, 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 400 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1981); Clooney v. Geeting, 352 So. 2d 1216, 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). In this context, such evidence may only serve to support the vicarious or derivative liability of an employer when the active tortfeasor is either not liable or is acting beyond the scope of his employment. In this case, in which it is admitted both that the police officers were actually responsible for the alleged false arrests and that they were acting in the course of their employment, the negligent training theory served no legal purpose and should not have been submitted to the jury. Petrik, 379 So. 2d at 1289; Clooney, 352 So. 2d at 1220.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Denis Cardoso, 963 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…that the award on the negligence claim may have affected the awards on the remaining eight counts of false arrest and/or imprisonment, we remanded for a new trial on damages relating to the remaining eight tort claims. Miami-Dade County v. Cardoso, 922 So. 2d 301, 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). The trial on damages resulted in a jury award of damages in the amount of $78,000.00. Specifically, the jury awarded Cardoso non-economic damages of $50,000.00 for pain and suffering for the two nights he spent in the Count…
-
G4S Secure Solutions USA, Inc. v. Taliya Golzar, 208 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…distress”). Additionally, in addressing whether Florida’s impact rule applies to the tort of negligent training, this Court has expressly held that the impact rule precludes recovery for such purely non-economic damages. Miami-Dade Cty. v. Cardoso, 922 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). C. Abril Nevertheless, Golzar argues that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Abril, which post-dates our decision in Cardoso, expands by implication the exceptions to Florida’s impact rule. We do not read Abril so broadly.…
-
Saint-Vil v. City of Miami Beach (S.D. Fla. 2022)…er, employee, or agent . . . committed in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property.’” 871 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1344 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (citing Miami–Dade County v. Cardoso, 922 So. 2d 301, 302 (3d DCA 2006) (Schwartz, J., concurring) (“‘negligent training’ is not, as a matter of law, a distinct theory of liability for compensatory damages which can form the basis of a separate award.”)). This conclusion is consistent with the fact…
Authorities Cited
- R.J. and P.J. v. Humana OF Fla., Inc., 652 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1995)
- Rowell v. Julianne M. Holt, 850 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 2003)
- Clooney v. Geeting, 352 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Ruttger Hotel Corp. v. Wagner, 691 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Petrik v. NEW Hampshire Ins. Co., 379 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Petrik v. NEW Hampshire Ins. Co., 400 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1981)
- Jordan v. Equity Props. & Dev. Co., 661 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Julianne M. Holt v. Rowell, 798 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Muzzio v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 799 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- The Sch. Bd. OF Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Francisco and Lourdes Trujillo, 906 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)