Motor vehicle negligence cases account for a large portion of personal injury litigation, yet punitive damages are rarely permitted unless there is sufficient supporting evidence.[i] Florida law imposes strict procedural and evidentiary requirements; under Florida Statutes section 768.72, a plaintiff may not plead punitive damages without demonstrating “clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant was engaged in “intentional misconduct or gross negligence.”[ii] Gross negligence is defined as conduct “so reckless or wanting in care that it constitute[s] a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such conduct.”[iii]

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).

One detail missed, several lives affected. Despite the harm that can result from medical misconduct, it is not as easy for prospective plaintiffs to file a medical negligence claim. First, a claimant must complete an adequate pre-suit investigation prior to filing the complaint in Court. The statutory safeguard confirms the prospective plaintiff’s claim is supported by reasonable grounds. The required investigation includes: (1) a notice of intent to initiate litigation; and (2) a corroborating affidavit written by a medical expert in a similar field as the defendant health care provider.

 In a recent case, the Fourth District Court of Appeals opined that a proper corroborating affidavit is a “low bar.”[i]As such, the penalties for failing to conduct an adequate pre-suit investigation have severe consequences commanded by the statute. The court shall dismiss the claim if the notice of intent to initiate litigation is inadequate.[ii]  Additionally, the person who mailed such notice, either the claimant or the claimant’s attorney, would be personally liable for all attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the investigation and evaluation of the claim.  A motion to dismiss would raise the issue of whether the corroborating affidavit is sufficient for a legitimate claim of medical negligence.[iii]

In Potapric v. Barnes, the Court dismissed a medical negligence claim for failing to comply with the statutory pre-suit requirements.[iv] Following alleged post-surgical complications, Barnes sued Dr. Potparic for medical negligence. Barnes’ expert affidavit stated Potparic violated the medical standard of care by performing the surgery while not properly registered with the Florida Department of Health. The affidavit mentioned a breach also where the nurse administered anesthesia while the supervising doctor was not properly registered. Discovery later revealed that Potparic was properly registered at the time of the surgery, and Barnes sought leave to file a second amended complaint. Barnes now alleged she was harmed because the nurse who administered the anesthesia was not properly registered with the Department of Health. However, Barnes did not submit a new affidavit with the second amended complaint. The affidavit did not mention the nurse’s own registration or describe any deficient act or how such act caused Barnes to have any injury.

The court looked at whether the notice of intent to initiate litigation and the corroborating expert opinion, taken together sufficiently indicated that Dr. Potparic allegedly deviated from the standard of care, and if Barnes provided adequate information for the defendants to evaluate the merits of the claim.[v] The Court agreed with Potparic that the affidavit does not corroborate reasonable grounds to support the claim of medical negligence set out in the second amended complaint. The only theory of negligence described in the claimant’s expert’s affidavit proved unfounded and was abandoned. The affidavit lent no support to the claim alleged in Barnes’s second amended complaint. Because Barnes failed to comply with the procedural requirements, the Court quashed the order denying dismissal with directions to grant the dismissal as commanded by statute. Along with dismissal, either Barnes or her attorney will be personally liable for the attorney’s fees and costs associated with investigating this claim.[vi]

While the District Court opinion did not reach the issue of consequences for failing to conduct a reasonable investigation, the statute commands liability for attorney’s fees and costs and disciplinary review with the Florida Bar.[vii]

[i] Potparic v. Barnes, No. 4D2025-1701, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 7301, at *6 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sep. 24, 2025).

[ii] Fla. Stat. § 766.206(2) (2025).

[iii] Id.

[iv] Potparic v. Barnes, No. 4D2025-1701, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 7301, at *6 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sep. 24, 2025).

[v] Id. at *5.

[vi] See Fla. Stat. §766.206(2)(2025).

[vii] Fla. Stat. § 766.206 (4).