Amazulu Transport Inc. v. Dinkins, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D630 (Fla. 6th DCA Mar. 14, 2025):
The defendant appealed the trial court’s ruling allowing the plaintiff to amend to add a claim for punitive damages.
The case arose out of a two-car collision at 11 a.m. The defendant driver testified that he was a regular user of marijuana but did not remember using marijuana after this accident. He testified he would not have smoked it in the morning when he first woke up but testified that he would use it throughout the day.
After the deposition, the plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to add a claim for punitive damages based on the defendant driver’s regular use of marijuana even on the days he was working, claiming that conduct was sufficiently outrageous to justify punitive damages.
While the court found that the trial court need not make an affirmative finding that a plaintiff has made a showing to provide a reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages (and certified conflict with the 3rd, 4th, and 5th districts on this point), it did find that the plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing needed to amend his complaint to add a claim for punitive damages.
The court found that there was no evidence that the defendant had used marijuana in the morning before the accident, and rejected the trial court’s conclusion, finding instead that the plaintiff made no showing that the defendant driver was high or impaired at the time of the accident. On de novo review, the appellate court concluded that the trial court was wrong to allow the amendment.
Pursuant to Section 316.193, Florida Statutes (the current version of the DUI manslaughter statute), there must be a showing made of impaired faculties. Alternatively, there should be some evidence that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the accident to satisfy the statutory requirement of a reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages.
Despite the clear references to intoxication and impairment, the plaintiff proffered no evidence that the defendant’s normal faculties were impaired or that he was intoxicated at the time of the accident. The plaintiff also failed to proffer or include any evidence of incriminating blood test results.
Plaintiff’s failure to make the requisite proffer of evidence necessitated reversal of the ruling allowing the plaintiff to amend to add a claim for punitive damages.