SHIRLEY RAIFORD MILLS, APPELLANT,
v.
CONE BROTHERS CONTRACTING COMPANY, 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.
The court held that a jury question existed regarding liability for punitive damages, requiring reversal of the partial summary judgment.
[1] A jury question exists regarding punitive damages if there is any evidence tending to show that punitive damages could be properly inflicted, even if the preponderance of…
[2] Culpable negligence, sufficient to support an award of punitive damages, is characterized by a gross and flagrant disregard for human life or safety, or an entire want of…
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 intelligenceThe defendant's employee parked a large, unlit road-paving machine in a prohibited lane of a two-lane street overnight without warning devices. The pl…
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 Disregard of Safety cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is brought by Shirley Mills, plaintiff below, from an order granting a partial summary judgment eliminating her claim for punitive damages in her negligence action against appellee, Cone Brothers Contracting Company. We agree with appellant’s contention that there was a jury question as to liability for punitive damages and, therefore, must reverse.
The rule with regard to summary judgments concerning punitive damages is no different than that in other summary judgment cases. As has been stated by our sister court in the third district:1
“If there is any evidence tending to show that punitive damages could be properly inflicted, even if the court be of the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence is the other way, the court should leave the question to the jury.”
*740Viewing- the record then in the light most favorable to plaintiff-appellant, as we must, we find that there was evidence that appellee’s employee, who had finished a working day, parked a heavy road-paving machine for the night in the east-bound lane of a two-lane street, where parking was prohibited. The plaintiff ran into it that night. There was further evidence that the equipment took up the whole eastbound lane, being approximately 11 feet 8 inches wide while the whole width of the two-lane street was 20 to 24 feet. The machine was dark green and there was testimony that it was totally non-reflective as to any source of light and could not be seen in the headlights of an automobile until a few feet from it. Furthermore, appel-lee’s employees did not set out any signaling or other warning devices to indicate the presence of the machine. Other evidence indicated that there was a safe off-street site for parking available to appellee within the immediate area.
Appellee points out that the degree of negligence necessary to support an award of punitive damages must be the same as would support a conviction of manslaughter (assuming a death) under the “culpable negligence” statute.2 We agree and, indeed, believe that the prima facie showing made here would withstand a directed verdict if this were a manslaughter case.3 Culpable negligence, under such a charge, has been more specifically defined as being of :4
“. . . 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.”
Applying the foregoing definition, how can we say as a matter of law that the conduct of appellee’s employees herein did not evince a “reckless disregard of human life” or did not display that “want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences” or constituted “a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public . equivalent to an intentional violation of [their rights]”? Evidence of contrary inferences, of course, is the very thing which raises a jury question; but prima facie a jury could find culpable negligence. Summary judgment denying punitive damages was improper.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ellis v. Golconda Corp., 352 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…epaired or replaced immediately. The degree of negligence necessary to support an award of punitive damages is the same as would support a conviction of manslaughter under the culpable negligence statute. Mills v. Cone Brothers Contracting Company, 265 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1972). Under such test it is necessary for the plaintiff to present proof that the conduct of McKenzie’s employee was such as to evince a reckless disregard of human life or to display that want of care which would raise the presumptio…
-
Taylor v. Gunter Trucking Co., Inc., 520 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…thus does not present a jury issue on punitive damages under the legal standards recognized in White Construction Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.1984); Carraway v. Revell, 116 So. 2d 16 (Fla.1959); and Mills v. Cone Bros. Contracting Co., 265 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). The record demonstrates the following facts for purposes of this motion for summary judgment, drawing all inferences most favorably for appellant. Joel Taylor was injured when he drove his father’s pickup truck into the rear end…1 / 3
-
DeWITT v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 268 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…petition for rehearing filed by appellant, we believe the question of punitive damages is a jury question and that the trial judge erred in granting a summary judgment in this regard. See [*180] Mills v. Cone Brothers Contracting Company, Fla.App., 265 So. 2d 739, filed August 25, 1972. The petition for rehearing is hereby granted and so much of the opinion rendered by this court affirming the trial judge’s granting of Seaboard’s motion for summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for action cons…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cannon v. State, 107 So. 360 (Fla. 1926)
- Royal Carraway v. Revell, 116 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1959)
- Glaab v. Caudill, 236 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Doral Country Club, Inc. v. Lindgren Plumbing Co., Inc., 175 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Austin v. State, 132 So. 491 (Fla. 1931)
- Johns v. State, 108 Fla. 261 (Fla. 1933)
- Baynard v. Liberman, 139 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Thompson v. State, 108 Fla. 370 (Fla. 1933)