Mirlalda v. Mitchell, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D383 (Fla. 6th DCA Feb. 27, 2026):

This comes arose near a jobsite incident on I-4. After work one evening, the defendant driver drove through the construction area unaware that a pipe on the back of his trailer had come unsecured and was sticking out to the side.  The pipe struck the plaintiff (another worker) from behind and also hit two parked vehicles.

The plaintiff sued the driver and the related entities for negligence and asserted negligent hiring/retention/supervision claims against the company.

The plaintiff’s proffer seeking leave to amend for punitive damages against the driver focused on the driver’s history before the pipe incident. He argued gross negligence because the driver had a history of license suspensions, was allegedly driving on an expired license at the time and had a similar incident only two days earlier. 

The plaintiff also sought punitive damages against the company based on theories of both vicarious and direct liability against the company (including ratification and negligent retention theories tied to management decisions).  The trial court allowed the plaintiff to amend.

The appellate court reversed. It emphasized that punitive damages are reserved for truly culpable behavior and require a reasonable evidentiary basis for intentional misconduct or gross negligence under section 768.72.

The court also stressed that the trial court’s gatekeeping function includes relevance and noted that punitive evidence must tie to the conduct that harmed the plaintiff; not just to the defendant’s “unsavory” background.

The court concluded that the points relied on by the trial court did not reasonably support gross negligence against the driver, thereby reversing against him. Because the plaintiff failed to meet the punitive threshold against the driver, both his direct and vicarious claims for punitive damages against the company also failed for the same reasons.