Willful And Wanton Misconduct

301 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Gould v. Jacques DeBEVE
  330 F.2d 826· D.C. Cir.· 1964-02-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a landlord's duty of care to a foreseeable child trespasser can extend beyond mere willful or wanton misconduct, especially when the landlord has notice of a dangerous condition.
• Attaway Tillman v. McLEOD
  124 So. 2d 135· Fla. 2d DCA· 1960-10-19 ·cited 12×
  The appellate court reviewed a summary judgment that held the plaintiff was a guest under the Florida Guest Statute, requiring proof of gross negligence for his injuries sustained during transportation.
• Brailsford v. Campbell
  89 So. 2d 241· Fla.· 1956-03-07 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Guest Statute (Section 320.59) applies to wrongful death actions brought by parents under Section 768.03, requiring proof of gross negligence rather than simple negligence. This was the first time the court addressed whether the Guest Statu
• Ling v. Edenfield
  211 F.2d 705· 5th Cir.· 1954-03-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence presented did not rise to the level of gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct required by Florida statute for a guest passenger's claim.
• Heald v. Milburn (two cases)
  125 F.2d 8· 7th Cir.· 1942-01-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury was warranted in finding the appellant negligent based on evidence of intoxication and the car veering into the wrong lane, and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of intoxication or in its jury instructions.
• Garvie v. The Cloverleaf, Inc.
  136 Fla. 899· Fla.· 1939-03-14 ·cited 12×
  This appeal addresses whether a guest injured in an automobile collision can maintain a cause of action under Michigan's guest statute when the declaration alleges gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct. The Florida Supreme Court reverses the lower court's dismissal, h
• Brady v. SCI Funeral Servs. OF Fla., Inc.
  948 So. 2d 976· Fla. 1st DCA· 2007-02-21 ·cited 11×
  The Bradys appealed a directed verdict that barred them from recovering non-economic damages for negligence in the mishandling of their deceased infant son's burial. The court reversed, holding that Florida's impact rule does not bar such damages when the complaint alleges willfu
• Marquez v. Heim Corp. & Winfield L. Kelly
  632 So. 2d 85· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-12-15 ·cited 11×
  Court reversed summary judgment for defendant Kelly in a workplace injury case, holding that genuine issues of material fact regarding Kelly's knowledge of safety hazards and whether his conduct constituted gross negligence or willful and wanton disregard precluded summary judgme
• Bell v. Einer Mickelsen
  710 F.2d 611· 10th Cir.· 1983-04-01 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the trial court erred in applying comparative negligence to intentional tort damages and in apportioning damages between defendants, but that the § 1983 waiver issue was not preserved for appeal.
• Garrison v. Heublein, Inc.
  673 F.2d 189· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-17 ·cited 11×
  A manufacturer has no duty to warn consumers of the commonly known dangers associated with alcoholic beverages, as such dangers are not considered unreasonably dangerous.
• Reynolds v. Aument
  133 So. 2d 562· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-07-26 ·cited 11×
  William J. Reynolds appealed from directed verdicts in two tort actions brought under Florida's Guest Statute after his 17-year-old son was killed in an automobile accident. The court reversed, holding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of gross negligence to submit
• Summersett v. Linkroum
  44 So. 2d 662· Fla.· 1950-02-21 ·cited 11×
  The Supreme Court of Florida held that a six-year-old student injured while riding on the running board of a private vehicle was within the guest statute's exception for school children being transported to or from school. This decision allows the student to sue for ordinary negl
• The Est. OF Lucille Williams v. Tandem Health Care OF Fla., Inc.
  899 So. 2d 369· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-03-29 ·cited 10×
  The Estate of Lucille Williams appealed a trial court order granting a new trial on noneconomic damages awarded to the decedent's nine adult children and denying leave to amend the complaint to add a punitive damages claim. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding tha
• Davis v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co.
  921 F.2d 616· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the railroad was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to present evidence of willful or wanton conduct, which is the required standard for landowner liability to a licensee injured by a condition of the premises.
• Robinson v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
  447 So. 2d 1003· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-03-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing out punitive damages and ordering remittitur, as there was sufficient evidence of corporate fault and the jury's award was not unreasonable.
• Mercury Motor Express, Inc. v. Smith
  372 So. 2d 116· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-05-22 ·cited 10×
  This case reviews whether a corporate employer can be held liable for punitive damages due to an employee's willful and wanton misconduct while operating under the company's permit. The court affirmed the punitive damage award, upholding Florida's majority rule on employer liabil
• Adams v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co.
  179 So. 2d 374· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-10-26 ·cited 10×
  Plaintiff appealed a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) granted to a railroad after a jury verdict in plaintiff's favor in a personal injury action arising from an automobile-train collision. The appellate court affirmed the JNOV, holding that plaintiff's own negligence
• Vergie Ruth Liefer v. Walton
  140 So. 2d 350· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-04-27 ·cited 10×
  Two plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict finding the defendant driver not guilty in an automobile negligence case. The court reversed, holding that the trial court should have granted a directed verdict for passenger O'Brien on liability, and that an improper jury instruction on sp
• Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Byrd
  298 F.2d 586· 5th Cir.· 1962-02-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the driver's failure to stop, look, and listen at a known railroad crossing with adequate warnings constituted contributory negligence as a matter of law, barring recovery for simple negligence. The court also found error in imputing the driver's negligence an
• Kaplan v. Taub
  104 So. 2d 882· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-07-30 ·cited 10×
  A person injured while about to enter a vehicle for a gratuitous ride is considered a guest under the guest statute, and the driver's act of starting the car is part of the gratuitous undertaking.
• McGINLEY v. Chancey (two cases)
  70 So. 2d 357· Fla.· 1953-12-18 ·cited 10×
  In this consolidated appeal of two guest passenger injury cases, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a directed verdict for the defendant driver, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove gross negligence as required under Florida's guest statute. The court rejected speculation and
• Duff v. United States (two cases)
  171 F.2d 846· 4th Cir.· 1949-01-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that under Maryland law, a landowner owes no duty to a trespasser or licensee to exercise ordinary care to avoid injury unless the landowner has actual knowledge of the person's peril.
• Lemay v. Kondrk
  860 So. 2d 1022· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-12-05 ·cited 9×
• TEN Assocs. & Highlands Ins. Co. v. Brunson
  492 So. 2d 1149· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-08-12 ·cited 9×
  Ten Associates owned an apartment complex in a high-crime area where a tenant was sexually assaulted in a vacant, unlocked apartment. The jury awarded punitive damages based on Ten Associates' negligent security measures, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the evidenc
• Chicago Heights Venture v. Dynamit Nobel OF Am., Inc.
  782 F.2d 723· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-28 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims, finding the statute of limitations barred the contract claim and that the remaining tort claims alleged only economic loss, which is not recoverable in tort under Illinois law.
• Adair v. The Koppers Co., Inc.
  741 F.2d 111· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-17 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a conveyor system is an 'improvement to real property' under Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.131, and therefore the statute of repose bars the plaintiff's action for injuries sustained from its design and construction.
• Kahal v. J. W. Wilson & Assocs., Inc.
  673 F.2d 547· D.C. Cir.· 1982-03-23 ·cited 9×
  A claim for punitive damages must have a colorable basis in law and fact to satisfy the federal jurisdictional amount requirement when it is the sole basis for jurisdiction.
• Nesbitt v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
  390 So. 2d 1209· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-11-12 ·cited 9×
  In this negligence case, the Florida appellate court reversed the trial judge's grant of a new trial, holding that jury instructions and a special verdict form properly explained the statutory definition of 'intentional' tortfeasor conduct under Florida's contribution statute by
• Gulf v. Freund
  183 F.2d 1005· 8th Cir.· 1950-08-09 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a jury finding of willful and wanton conduct by the railroad, and that the plaintiff's own negligence was the proximate cause of his injuries.
• Polly Kozak v. Mittie Ake
  147 Fla. 508· Fla.· 1941-06-17 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the jury's verdict finding no gross negligence or willful misconduct was not contrary to law or the manifest weight of the evidence.
• Hollander v. Davis
  120 F.2d 131· 5th Cir.· 1941-06-03 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the complaint's allegations, if proven, could establish gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct, precluding dismissal on the pleadings.
• Roland v. Langlois
  945 F.2d 956· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff, Douglas Roland, was a trespasser as a matter of law when he entered the operational area of the Zipper ride, and therefore the defendants owed him only a duty to refrain from willful and wanton conduct.
• Carlson v. Arnot-Ogden Mem'l Hosp.
  918 F.2d 411· 3d Cir.· 1990-11-05 ·cited 8×
  A contract provision requiring ninety days' written notice for termination rebuts the presumption of at-will employment and creates a contract for a minimum term of ninety days, even if the employment never commenced.
• Barrier v. Duncan
  541 So. 2d 631· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-01-06 ·cited 8×
  In this motor vehicle collision case, the Florida appellate court reversed a jury verdict that found the appellants 90% at fault because the trial court gave conflicting and misleading jury instructions regarding a driver's right to stop on the highway and improperly instructed t
• Zepik v. Tidewater Midwest, Inc.
  856 F.2d 936· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Consumer Products Safety Act does not provide a private right of action for reporting violations, and that the district court must reconsider the exercise of pendent jurisdiction over state law claims.
• Jade Tolliver v. Emil F. Amici and Virginia Amici
  800 F.2d 149· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-29 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the awards of punitive damages and attorney fees, finding sufficient evidence of willful discrimination and that the fee award was reasonable and justified.
• Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
  722 F.2d 1400· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Grinnell's garage liability policy provided primary coverage for the accident, and Excalibur's policy provided excess coverage, denying indemnity claims between the parties.
• McCLAIN v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  473 F.2d 357· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find the railroad liable, and thus the granting of judgment notwithstanding the verdict was improper.
• Kuklis v. Hancock
  428 F.2d 608· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the blood alcohol test results were admissible and that the trial court did not err in rejecting the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk.
• Baldwin v. Hill
  315 F.2d 738· 6th Cir.· 1963-04-06 ·cited 8×
  A bailee who permits another to drive her father's car, furnishing gas and control, is the host, not a guest, under Michigan's guest passenger statute. Cross-examination about prior driving conduct was not prejudicial error.
• LA RUE v. Hoffman
  109 So. 2d 373· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-01-28 ·cited 8×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a summary judgment for the defendant, holding that a pedestrian struck by the car door while standing beside the vehicle after exiting was still considered a guest under the state's guest statute. The court reasoned that the host-gues
• Klem's, Inc. v. Cline
  105 So. 2d 881· Fla.· 1958-10-17 ·cited 8×
  Klem's Inc. and driver Stanley Moore appealed a judgment in favor of Patricia Cline for injuries sustained when Moore's rented car collided with parked vehicles while Cline was a guest. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported a finding of gross neg
• Brown v. Roach
  67 So. 2d 201· Fla.· 1953-11-20 ·cited 8×
  A guest passenger sued his host driver under Florida's guest statute for injuries from a collision, alleging gross negligence. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failing to state sufficient allegations of gross negligence, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding
• Peterson v. Denevan
  177 F.2d 411· 8th Cir.· 1949-11-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence did not compel a finding that the defendant's conduct was willful and wanton misconduct under the South Dakota Guest Statute.
• Maulding v. Louisville & N. R. Co.
  168 F.2d 880· 7th Cir.· 1948-06-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the wilful and wanton count to the jury, nor in admitting a letter from the defendant's claim agent.
• Holcombe v. Buckland
  130 F.2d 544· 4th Cir.· 1942-08-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs, who were using the monorail with the defendant's knowledge and permission, and that the defendant's failure to warn of or repair a known dangerous condition constituted actionable negligence.
• Robins v. Pitcairn
  124 F.2d 734· 7th Cir.· 1941-12-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the railroad was not negligent, but the driver's conduct warranted submission to the jury.
• Andrews v. Wilkins
  934 F.2d 1265· D.C. Cir.· 1991-05-31 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the government was entitled to summary judgment on claims related to the initial chase and failure to rescue, but the dissent argues there was a triable issue of fact regarding the Park Police's interference with a private rescue attempt.
• Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gazelle
  523 So. 2d 648· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-03-10 ·cited 7×
  Winn-Dixie appealed a malicious prosecution judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages after it reported checks written by Gazelle's wife to the state attorney, resulting in Gazelle's arrest. The court vacated the judgment and remanded, holding that legal malice inferred
• Wolmer v. Chrysler Corp.
  474 So. 2d 834· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-07-17 ·cited 7×
  In this wrongful death case arising from a tragic rear-end collision, the court reverses the trial court's directed verdict on punitive damages, holding that sufficient evidence of Chrysler's knowledge of dangerous fuel system defects in the 1977 Plymouth Volare supported submiss