Fourth District Court of Appeals Holds that Reading Texts, but Not Responding, Does Not Provide Grounds for Punitive Damages

The defendant was driving a truck into an intersection when he allegedly struck a golf cart driven by the plaintiff. There was a dispute as to who had the green light and who hit whom. At his deposition, the defendant testified that, while at the intersection, he had received a text message from his wife and had looked down to view the message, but he was not looking down when the plaintiff hit him. The defendant went on to admit it was unreasonable and reckless for a driver to text while operating a motor vehicle. 

The trial court had granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to add punitive damages. The Fourth District Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court’s ruling and reversed and remanded the case, quoting the Sixth District Court of Appeal’s holding in Mercer v. Saddle Creek Transp., 389 So. 3d 774, 776 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024), wherein the Circuit Court held, “mere use of a cell phone while driving a truck” does not automatically provide a reasonable basis for a plaintiff to seek punitive damages. In essence, not all cell phone use is equal, and there must be additional facts to support cell phone use was reckless or a conscious disregard of, or indifference to, others in order to support a claim for punitive damages. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}