Background
Plaintiff Glade sued defendant Govey, a Lyft rideshare driver, after Govey rear-ended his car while Glade was making a right-hand turn at a traffic light following an I-95 exit. Glade initially sued for ordinary negligence. Later, Glade moved to amend his complaint to add a punitive damages claim based on evidence that Govey was using his cell phone at the time of the accident. Glade’s sole support for this amendment came from deposition testimony of Govey’s passenger, who stated that Govey was “locked in on his phone” with his fingers and failed to brake before impact. However, the passenger acknowledged he did not know what Govey was doing on the phone, how long he held it, the color of the traffic light, or Govey’s speed. The passenger also testified that he did not brace for impact, suffered no bodily injury, and airbags did not deploy.
The trial court granted Glade’s motion to amend, concluding that Govey must have been looking at his phone for an “extraordinary amount of time” to have failed to see or avoid Glade’s car, and that violating Florida’s texting-while-driving statute constituted outrageous conduct. Govey appealed the nonfinal order.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Glade’s proffered evidence did not meet Florida’s statutory requirements for punitive damages under Fla. Stat. § 768.72. The court emphasized that punitive damages require either intentional misconduct or gross negligence—conduct “so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons.” Punitive damages are reserved for conduct akin to criminal manslaughter and must be truly culpable enough to arouse outrage in an average community member.
The court held that mere cell phone use while driving is insufficient to support a punitive damages claim. Citing its prior decisions in Creech v. Santomassino and the Sixth District’s decision in Mercer v. Saddle Creek Transportation, the court established that cell phone use must be accompanied by “some additional act” demonstrating reckless disregard or conscious indifference to support gross negligence. A statutory violation of the texting-while-driving law alone, though traffic-law violations are prohibited, does not constitute outrageous conduct for punitive damages purposes.
The court found Glade’s evidence critically deficient: no proof of Govey’s speed, how long he was distracted, whether Glade’s brake lights were visible, the color of the traffic light, whether Govey attempted to brake or slow down, or any other facts distinguishing this case from Creech or Mercer. The court concluded this was “a routine traffic accident” supporting compensatory damages but falling short of the punitive damages threshold.
Key Takeaways
- Cell phone use while driving does not, standing alone, provide a reasonable basis to pursue punitive damages under Florida law.
- Plaintiffs seeking punitive damages must proffer evidence of additional egregious acts beyond mere phone use, demonstrating reckless disregard or conscious indifference to safety.
- Trial courts serve as gatekeepers and must require sufficient evidentiary foundation meeting the statutory prima facie standard before allowing punitive damages claims to proceed.
- Statutory traffic violations, even repeated ones, are insufficient standing alone to support punitive damages liability.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a high bar for punitive damages in auto negligence cases, particularly those involving distracted driving. While plaintiffs remain free to pursue compensatory damages for negligent accidents involving cell phones, they cannot rely on phone use alone—even combined with a resulting crash—to access the punitive damages remedy. This protects defendants from excessive liability exposure while still permitting recovery for actual injuries and losses.
The ruling also clarifies that trial courts have a duty to scrutinize punitive damages motions carefully and require plaintiffs to proffer specific, concrete evidence of truly egregious conduct. Vague assertions or inferences about driver distraction, without evidentiary support regarding timing, duration, visibility, reaction opportunity, and alternative causes, will not suffice. Attorneys handling distracted-driving cases must gather detailed factual evidence—dashcam footage, phone records, speed data, lighting conditions, sight-line analysis—to sustain a punitive damages theory.