The Sixth District Court of Appeal recently applied these principles in Sagastume Mirlalda v. Mitchell, a decision that highlights the narrow circumstances in which punitive damages may be asserted in negligence cases.[iv] Here, the court addressed whether the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to assert punitive damages against both the driver and his employer companies. The appellate court ultimately reversed the trial court’s order, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages under section 768.72.[v]
Sagastume worked for a concrete company that operated pump trailers on construction sites. While driving through a construction area, a pipe attached to his trailer became unsecured and struck another worker, Stafford Mitchell, causing injuries. Mitchell sued Sagastume and the company entities for negligence. In his motion for leave for punitive damages, Mitchell argued Sagastume’s conduct was grossly negligent because Sagastume had a history of driver’s license suspensions, was driving with an expired license at the time of the accident, and had allegedly been involved in a similar incident two days earlier. Mitchell also sought punitive damages against the employer entities based on negligent hiring, retention, and supervision.
The trial court granted the motion, concluding that Sagastume demonstrated willful and wanton conduct sufficient to support punitive damages. The court further determined that the employer could face both vicarious and direct punitive liability. The Sixth District disagreed, emphasizing that punitive damages are reserved for “truly culpable behavior” that would cause an average member of the community to exclaim, “Outrageous!”
First, the court rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on Sagastume’s prior driving history. Because these suspensions were unrelated to reckless driving or dangerous conduct, the court concluded that they were irrelevant to determining whether Sagastume acted with gross negligence on the day of the accident. Second, the court determined that Sagastume’s expired driver’s license did not support punitive damages. Although driving with an expired license may violate traffic laws, the court explained that such a violation does not establish gross negligence. Finally, the court found the accident two days earlier could not support punitive damages because the record contained no evidence explaining what caused that incident, and, therefore, could not establish that Sagastume acted recklessly in the accident at issue.
For these reasons, the appellate court also rejected the plaintiff’s theory of vicarious liability against the employer. Florida law requires proof an employee engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence before punitive damages may be imposed on the employer.[vii] The court also rejected direct liability against the employer. Because Sagastume had originally been hired as a mechanic and only later transferred to a driver position, the court concluded the plaintiff failed to present evidence showing that the managers acted with willful or malicious conduct when hiring and supervising Sagastume.
This decision reinforces Florida courts’ strict approach to punitive damages and clarifies that a defendant’s driving history is insufficient to support punitive damages unless it is directly connected to the conduct that caused the plaintiff’s injury. This case highlights the importance of demonstrating a clear nexus between the defendant’s prior conduct and the alleged misconduct at issue; administrative violations or unrelated driving infractions will rarely satisfy Florida’s demanding gross negligence standard. This decision also provides strong defense grounds to challenge punitive damages claims that rely on generalized character evidence rather than conduct that demonstrates a conscious disregard for public safety.
[i] See When Can You Seek Punitive Damages for an Auto Accident in Florida?, JD Supra (Nov. 17, 2025), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/when-can-you-seek-punitive-damages-for-5002110/.
[ii] Fla. Stat. § 768.72 (1–2) (2024).
[iii] Fla. Stat. § 768.72 (2)(b) (2024).
[iv] Sagastume Mirlalda v. Mitchell, No. 6D2025-0451, 2026 WL 547765 (Fla. 6th DCA Feb. 27, 2026).
[v] Id.
[vi] Id.
[vii] Fla. Stat. § 768.72(3) (2024).