Smith v. Brantley, s. 83-170
| Decision Date | 27 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 83-170,83-348,s. 83-170 |
| Citation | 455 So.2d 1063 |
| Parties | Charles W. SMITH and Wilma Smith, his wife, Appellants, v. Foster BRANTLEY, Tampa Sand and Material, a division of Florida Mining and Materials Corporation, and Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John T. Allen, Jr. of John T. Allen, Jr., P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellants.
Chris W. Altenbernd of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, and William K. Bennett of Bradham, Bennett & Holton, St. Petersburg, for appellees.
Charles and Wilma Smith, the plaintiffs in a personal injury action against the defendants, Foster Brantley, Tampa Sand and Material, a division of Florida Mining and Materials Corporation, and Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, contend on appeal, inter alia, that the trial court erred by granting a motion submitted on behalf of the corporate defendants for a directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages. We affirm.
The Smiths' lawsuit stemmed from a mishap at a St. Petersburg intersection in which a vehicle being driven by Mr. Smith was struck by a loaded cement truck being operated by Brantley within the scope of his employment with Tampa Sand and Material. The collision may have been caused by faulty brakes on the Tampa Sand and Material-owned truck. The Smiths, while charging Brantley with negligence in the operation of the truck, sought to hold Tampa Sand and Material and Florida Mining and Materials Corporation directly liable for punitive damages. In particular, they alleged that, due to Tampa Sand and Material and Florida Mining and Materials Corporation's "willful and wanton disregard for the rights of others" in "mandating" and "allowing" Brantley to operate the truck during the normal course of business despite their "knowledge" of the truck's defective brakes, Mr. Smith suffered permanent injuries, sustained property damage, incurred medical expenses, and sustained loss of earnings. (The Smiths did not attempt to also hold Brantley liable for punitive damages, notwithstanding having alleged that he, too, knew that the brakes were not working properly.)
In order to support a claim against a defendant for direct punitive damages, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant acted in willful and wanton disregard of the rights of others; gross negligence, by itself, is not enough. See U.S. Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bould, 437 So.2d 1061, 1064 (Fla.1983); 1 Clooney v. Geeting, 352 So.2d 1216, 1219 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).
In considering a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is required to evaluate the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and every reasonable inference adduced from the evidence must be indulged in the nonmoving party's favor. See American Motors Corp. v. Ellis, 403 So.2d 459, 467 (Fla.5th DCA 1981). Thus, such a motion should be granted only if there is not any evidence upon which a jury could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party. Id.
Evaluating the evidence on the issue of punitive damages in the case at bar in a light most favorable to the Smiths, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolmer v. Chrysler Corp.
...most favorable to the non-moving party. See Urling v. Helms Exterminators, Inc., 468 So.2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Smith v. Brantley, 455 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), review denied, 462 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1985); Maguire v. American Family Life Assurance Co., 442 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)......
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hooks, AUTO-OWNERS
...will not support the award of punitive damages. White Construction Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 455 So.2d 1026 (Fla.1984); Smith v. Brantley, 455 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In ruling on Auto-Owners' motion for a directed verdict, the trial court was required to evaluate the evidence in the ligh......
-
Payton Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Estate of Campbell By and Through Campbell for and on Behalf of Campbell, s. 85-560
...or reckless indifference to the rights of others in their care and treatment of Morris Hugo Campbell?" Appellants cite Smith v. Brantley, 455 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), Clooney v. Geeting, 352 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) and Carraway v. Revell, 116 So.2d 16 (Fla.1959) in support of th......
-
Neidhart v. Pioneer Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n
...to evaluate the evidence on the punitive damages issue in the light most favorable to Neidhart as the nonmoving party. Smith v. Brantley, 455 So.2d 1063 (Fla.2d DCA 1984), petition for review denied, 462 So.2d 1107 Only Neidhart testified on his behalf. Our examination of his testimony reve......