HOOPER ALEXANDER, III, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET M. ALEXANDER, DECEASED, PETITIONER,
v.
ALTERMAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND CHARLES E. PENLEY, RESPONDENTS
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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's dismissal of claims in a wrongful death action, holding that under Florida's new Wrongful Death Act, a claim for the decedent's pain and suffering was replaced with a claim for pain and suffering of close relatives, and that punitive damages could potentially be pursued against a corporate employer if properly alleged.
The court held that: (1) under Florida's consolidated Survival and Wrongful Death statutes, the claim for a decedent's pain and suffering was eliminated and replaced with a claim for pain and suffering of close relatives; (2) punitive damages are permissible against a corporate employer under the new Wrongful Death Act; and (3) the allegations of gross negligence in operating a motor vehicle were insufficient to state a cause of action for punitive damages against the corporate employer.
[1] A claim for a decedent's pain and suffering prior to death is not recoverable under Florida's Wrongful Death Act; instead, recovery is limited to the pain and suffering o…
[2] A corporation may be held liable for punitive damages for the acts of its employees or agents committed within the scope of their employment.
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“the claim for a decedent's pain and suffering was eliminated and that there was substituted the claim of pain and suffering for close relatives of the decedent”
Establishes the key holding regarding the shift from decedent's pain and suffering claim to relatives' claim under the new Wrongful Death Act
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMargaret M. Alexander was killed in a motor vehicle accident involving Charles E. Penley, an employee of Alterman Transport Lines, Inc. The administra…
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 Claim For Medical Expenses cases and more on FLexlaw
HARDING, MAJOR B., Associate Judge.
The Plaintiff below petitions for Writ of Certiorari asking the Court to review the order of the trial court dismissing with prejudice claims for relief prayed for in the second amended complaint. We recognize that the trial court and counsel did not have the benefit of the opinion in the decision of the Supreme Court, Martin v. United Security Services, Inc., 314 So. 2d 765 (Fla.1975). The Supreme Court decision points out a departure from the essential requirements of the law which requires the issuance of the Writ of Certio-rari.
The trial judge entered an order striking from the second amended complaint a claim for the decedent’s pain and suffering prior to her death as well as the plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages against the corporate defendant employer leaving in effect only a claim against both defendants for medical expenses and funeral bill and against the individual defendant employee truck driver for punitive damages. The Supreme Court in the aforementioned case held that the provisions of the Survival Statute, Section 46.021,- Florida -Statutes, were consolidated with the new Wrongful Death Act of Florida, Sections 768.16-768.27, Florida Statutes; that the claim for a decedent’s pain and suffering was eliminated and that there was substituted the claim of pain and suffering for close relatives of the decedent. In view of said holding, this cause should be remanded to the trial court with leave for the plaintiff to amend the second amended complaint to make a claim for the pain and suffering of the close relatives of the decedent for and on whose behalf the suit is brought if such a claim can be made.
A claim for punitive damages is permissible under the new Wrongful Death Act of Florida, Sections 768.16-768.27, Florida Statutes, and it is well settled that a corporation can be held liable for punitive damages for the acts of its employees or agents committed while acting within the scope of the employee’s or agent’s employment. Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214; Joab Inc. v. Thrall, Fla.App., 24S So. 2d 291; and Wackenhut v. Greene, Fla. App., 238 So. 2d 431.
However, in the case under consideration the allegations of the second amended complaint are not sufficient to state a cause of action for punitive damages against the corporate defendant employer. The bare allegations of gross negligence on the part of an employee in operating an employer’s motor vehicle are not sufficient to sustain a claim for punitive damages on the part of an employer. In view of the fact that this cause is being remanded to the trial court with leave to amend in other particulars, the plaintiff should likewise be given leave to amend the claim for punitive damages.
The petition for the Writ of Certiorari is granted, the writ is issued, and this cause is remanded to the trial court with 'leave to amend consistent with this opinion.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hooper Alexander, III v. Alterman Transp. Lines, Inc., 387 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…without more, a sufficiently reckless attitude for a jury to be asked to award punitive damages if it determines liability exists for compensatory damages.” Ingram v. Pettit, 340 So. 2d 1922 (Fla.1976). In our prior decision, Alexander v. Alterman, 327 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), hereafter Alterman I, we followed the same reasoning as did the court in Clooney v. Geeting, supra, in holding that “bare allegations of gross negligence” on the part of an employee in operating an employer’s motor vehicle are n…
-
Hooper Alexander, III v. Alterman Transp. Lines, Inc., 350 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…purpose of remanding with directions to the trial judge to permit petitioner to once again amend his complaint as to punitive damages; otherwise, certiorari is denied.3 McCORD, C. J., and BOYER, J., concur. . Alexander v. Alterman Transport Lines, 327 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). . Huckle v. Money, 2 Wils.K.B. 205, 95 Eng. Reps. 768 (1763). . We are not unaware of the Florida Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181, opinion filed July 28, 1977, rehearings denied September…
-
Wojcik v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 347 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…ed for both the decedent’s pain and suffering and the loss of net accumulations for beneficiaries other than the surviving spouse and lineal descendants.” 323 So. 2d at 575. (Emphasis supplied.) Then, in Alexander v. Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., 327 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) the court used the Martin terminology almost verbatim as follows: . . The Supreme Court in the aforementioned case held that the provisions of the Survival Statute, Section 46.-021, Florida Statutes, were consolidated with the n…
Authorities Cited
- Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308 (Fla. 1936)
- Martin v. United Sec. Servs., Inc., 314 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1975)
- Consol. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ramy, 238 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)