Willful And Wanton Misconduct

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

• Mobil OIL Corp. ("Mobil") v. Patrick
  442 So. 2d 242· Fla. 4th DCA· 1983-11-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Mobil's conduct, while negligent, did not rise to the level of willful and wanton disregard required for punitive damages.
• Leon Cnty. Humane Soc'y, Inc. v. DeGROAT
  439 So. 2d 949· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-10-13 ·cited 2×
  Punitive damages are not recoverable where the defendant's employee's conduct, though negligent, does not constitute willful, wanton, and reckless disregard of the plaintiff's safety; the trial court erred in submitting the punitive damages issue to the jury.
• McCUTCHEN v. Highlands Ins. Co.
  424 So. 2d 26· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-11-16 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, holding that an insurer is not obligated to pay punitive damages assessed against an insured, even if the insured's liability is vicarious, due to public policy against insuring against one's own misconduct.
• Lippincott v. Exotica Imports, Inc.
  413 So. 2d 66· Fla. 2d DCA· 1982-03-19 ·cited 2×
  A motor vehicle dealer who facilitates the registration of an uninsured vehicle is liable to an injured party for the amount of mandatory personal injury protection (PIP) benefits the uninsured owner should have had.
• Aubertin v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Woodson Cnty.
  588 F.2d 781· 10th Cir.· 1978-12-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Kansas statutory scheme granting counties immunity from negligence claims, while allowing municipalities to be sued for negligence, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause and that the absence of guardrails or warning signs does not constitute a 'defe
• Gulf Shore Seafood & Co., Inc. v. Cities Serv. Co.
  501 F.2d 957· 5th Cir.· 1974-09-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial judge correctly directed a verdict against the plaintiff on the issue of punitive damages because there was insufficient evidence of willful and wanton misconduct.
• Lovell v. Chesapeake & Ohio R.R. Co.
  457 F.2d 1009· 6th Cir.· 1972-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Michigan Trespass Statute barred the negligence claim because the decedent's entry onto the railroad property was for recreational purposes, not a rescue, and there was no evidence of gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct by the railroad.
• Papp v. Guillermina Rivero Morales
  254 So. 2d 794· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-11-23 ·cited 2×
  Maria Papp, a passenger injured in an automobile accident, appealed a jury verdict in her negligence action against the vehicle owner and driver Guillermina Morales. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly submitted to the jury the question of whether
• Robert M. Spellacy ad Litem of Patrick James Spellacy v. S. Pac. Co. & Ronald Burke
  428 F.2d 619· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its instructions or rulings, and that the jury's findings were supported by substantial evidence, leading to an affirmance of the judgment.
• Boatright v. Sclivia
  421 F.2d 949· 10th Cir.· 1970-02-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the theory of willful and wanton conduct, as the facts supported such a claim and it was a valid basis for recovery.
• Elliott v. Watkins Trucking Co., Inc.
  406 F.2d 90· 7th Cir.· 1969-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict due to the jury's inconsistent answers to interrogatories and general verdict, and that the psychologist's testimony was admissible.
• Bochiaro v. Bochiaro
  212 So. 2d 882· Fla. 4th DCA· 1968-07-15 ·cited 2×
  The court reviewed a complaint alleging gross negligence under the Florida guest passenger statute, where the plaintiff's husband died in an automobile collision.
• Croxton v. Skoglund
  151 So. 2d 24· Fla. 2d DCA· 1963-02-27 ·cited 2×
  A minor passenger in a car sued the vehicle's owner and operator after a collision, claiming ordinary negligence. The court held that Florida's "Guest Statute" applied because the plaintiff was a non-paying guest on a personal errand unrelated to the school transportation arrange
• Parker v. Heresz
  295 F.2d 731· 7th Cir.· 1961-11-01 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge held that the plaintiff remained a non-paying guest, and therefore, simple negligence was insufficient to establish liability under Indiana law.
• Andrews v. Ottie Wynell Kirk
  106 So. 2d 110· Fla. 3d DCA· 1958-10-30 ·cited 2×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal addressed whether a guest passenger in an automobile can terminate their guest status by protesting reckless driving and demanding to be released, thereby becoming entitled to recover for simple negligence rather than only gross negligence und
• Hall v. Hughey
  104 So. 2d 849· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-09-05 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court reviewed a final judgment for the appellee after the trial court found the appellant's second amended complaint insufficient to establish gross negligence under the guest statute.
• Guess v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
  191 F.2d 976· 8th Cir.· 1951-10-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's actions in attempting to climb between cars of a standing train on a non-public pathway constituted contributory negligence as a matter of law, thus affirming the directed verdict for the defendant.
• Kendron v. SCI Funeral Servs. OF Fla., LLC
  230 So. 3d 636· Fla. 5th DCA· 2017-12-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the statute of limitations did not bar claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, but did bar the claim for tortious interference with human remains.
• Davidson v. City of Jacksonville
  359 F. Supp. 2d 1291· M.D. Fla.· 2005-02-16 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a constitutional violation under Section 1983, and therefore, qualified immunity applied to the individual defendants, and the City was not liable for municipal claims. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdi
• Geary v. Starr
  418 So. 2d 1135· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-08-18 ·cited 1×
  In this vicarious liability case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed part of a jury verdict awarding punitive damages against an employer, holding that under respondeat superior doctrine, an employer can only be held vicariously liable for punitive damages if there is s
• Rushton v. State
  395 So. 2d 610· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-03-25 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to include the phrase 'willful, wanton' in its jury instruction for vehicular homicide, as the statutory language was sufficient and the requested addition would not alter the required proof.
• Tucker v. Fitzgerald
  247 So. 2d 459· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-04-19 ·cited 1×
  Tucker appeals the dismissal of his complaint against vehicle owner Fitzgerald, who allegedly negligently entrusted her car to an intoxicated driver. The court held that under Florida's Guest Statute, a guest passenger cannot recover from a vehicle owner for ordinary negligence i
• Felts v. Evans
  219 So. 2d 721· Fla. 1st DCA· 1969-03-06 ·cited 1×
  In this negligence action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the evidence established the plaintiff was a fare-paying passenger rather than a guest passenger, and therefore the trial cour
• Barber v. Majestic Wood Prods., Inc.
  195 So. 2d 593· Fla. 1st DCA· 1967-03-02 ·cited 1×
  Two minor students injured in a vehicle accident appealed summary judgment dismissing their negligence claims against the vehicle owner. The court held that the guest passenger statute's exemption for students being transported to/from school did not apply because the plaintiffs
• Rodriguez v. Eliseo Gomez and Georgina Gomez
  175 So. 2d 579· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-06-01 ·cited 1×
  Rodriguez sued the Gomezes for injuries sustained as a passenger in their negligently operated vehicle. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants based on Florida's Guest Statute, which bars passenger recovery absent gross negligence. The appellate court reverse
• Brayan A. Sagastume Mirlalda
  Fla. 6th DCA· 2026-02-27
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order granting leave to assert punitive damages claims against a concrete pump operator and his employer companies. The court held that the evidence presented—prior license suspensions for administrative violations, dr
• Willey v. Phoenix Rehab. & Health Servs., Inc.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2026-02-19
  A Delaware Superior Court granted summary judgment on competing motions in a medical negligence case arising from a physical therapist's request that a post-surgical patient bend despite physician restrictions. The court ruled that punitive damages claims require evidence of egre
• Coll v. 11USAGROUP, LLC
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2025-04-23
  Appellants failed to make a reasonable showing providing a reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages under Florida Statute § 768.72(1), and the trial court properly performed its gatekeeping function in denying the motion to amend.
• Milton
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2025-02-05
  The court granted the defendants' motion for reargument, finding that they met their burden to establish a basis for relief under Rule 59. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the issue of punitive damages, concluding that no genuine issu
• DOE (a.c.) v. Carnival Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-11-08
  The court held that negligence claims premised on independent conduct are permissible alongside strict liability claims for intentional torts, but claims that merely recast the intentional tort as negligence are not. Punitive damages are not available absent a showing of the defe
• Moore v. Williams
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-28
  The court held that the federal law claims in Counts XVIII and XIX were duplicative and dismissed Count XVIII, the willful and wanton conduct claim in Count XX was barred by sovereign immunity and dismissed, and the indemnification claim in Count XXVII was dismissed.
• Doe v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, Ltd
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-22
  The court held that a negligence claim cannot be premised on the same intentional tort as a strict liability claim, and punitive damages are unavailable without allegations of intentional misconduct or willful/wanton conduct.
• Jones v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-07-08
  The court held that genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding whether the defendant's conduct constituted willful or wanton misconduct, precluding summary judgment.
• Bull
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2024-06-24
  The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision finding just cause for termination and denying unemployment benefits is affirmed. The court found that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings, and no legal error was committed. The employee's arguments regarding hear
• West v. Patterson-Schwartz & Assocs., Inc.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2024-05-10
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the plaintiff's claims for injuries from mold exposure were time-barred by the statute of limitations. The court found that the plaintiff was on "inquiry notice" of his potential claim no later than July 2019, wh
• Mayer v. Carnival Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-04-24
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded actual or constructive notice for her negligence claims but failed to adequately plead negligent training and punitive damages.
• Chambliss v. Brevard Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-17
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Deputy Harrell used excessive force, precluding summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim, and that Chambliss's right was clearly established.
• Bristow
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2023-07-24
  The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add a claim for punitive damages against SpecialtyCare, Dr. Franco, and Dr. Shi. The Court found that the proposed claims were legally insufficient because the facts alleged did not meet the high bar required for
• The Est. of Susan J. Moulder v. Sujung Park, M.D.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2022-09-29
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a claim for mental anguish under Delaware law because his late wife did not suffer a physical injury or substantial and ongoing physical symptoms of mental ang
• Beasley v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-01-28
  The court held that the plaintiff's negligence claim was barred by statute because he was a convicted felon in possession of a firearm at the time of his injury, and even if not barred, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on premises liability due to the plaintiff's
• Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Fla. Constr. Servs., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-10-29
  The court denied Southern-Owners' motion for summary judgment and granted First Mercury's motion, finding that Grady Square and Richman are additional insureds under the Southern-Owners policy.
• Sexton v. Carnival Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-06-11
  The court held that while an issue of fact remains regarding the plaintiff's dependency under DOHSA, claims on behalf of Hardy are dismissed due to lack of proven pecuniary damages, and the tortious interference claim fails as Carnival's conduct was not malicious.
• Naughton v. C.A. No. N19C-01-095 JRJ GEM Ambulance, LLC
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2021-04-29
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding the identity of the ambulance involved in the accident or the liability of the defendants. The court determined that the plaintiff's
• Carolann Sharkey v. Hallandale Beach Police Dep't & City of Hallandale Beach
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2021-04-07
  An action for mental anguish based on negligent handling of a dead body requires proof of either physical injury or willful or wanton misconduct, and sovereign immunity shields government employers from liability for employees' willful or wanton conduct.
• IGO v. C.A. No. N20A-03-001 ALR Acts Ret. Life Cmtys. & THE Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2021-01-05
  The Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board's decision is reversed and remanded because the Board committed legal error by failing to correct the Appeals Referee's exclusion of hearsay evidence offered by the self-represented employee, and by failing to address whether the employee
• Lipman
  Del. Ch.· 2020-11-18
  The Court denied in part and granted in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court found that demand on the general partner was excused as futile due to the controller's substantial likelihood of liability. The Court also found that the plaintiffs had stated claims for br
• Fogle v. IBM Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-07-24
  The court granted in part and denied in part IBM's motion to dismiss, and granted MetLife's motion to dismiss, finding that Florida's impact rule barred most of the negligence claims, and that the ERISA claims failed to state a claim.
• Williams v. Boyd-Panciera Fam. Funeral Care, Inc.
  293 So. 3d 499· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-03-11
  The appellate court affirmed a lower court's summary judgment for a funeral home after it lost a miscarried baby's cremated remains. The court held that Florida's "impact rule" barred recovery for emotional distress without physical injury or manifestation, and the funeral home's
• Harris v. Wingo
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-11-05
  Deputy Kasey Wingo sought summary judgment on various claims arising from two arrests of Robert Harris in 2014 and 2016, but the court granted the motion only in part. For the April 2014 arrest, the court found that disputed facts precluded summary judgment on false arrest, malic
• Bell v. Circle K Stores Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-10-15
  The court held that the plaintiff, who entered the store solely to use the restroom, was an uninvited licensee and that the defendant did not breach its duty to refrain from willful misconduct or warn of the hazard.