In Florida, if someone is negligent and you are injured, you are generally entitled to damages that are legally caused by such negligence. Such damages may include medical bills, past and future, lost wages, past and future, pain and suffering, loss of the enjoyment of life and other intangible damages. So as a starting point, when you are injured by a drunk driver (someone charged with DUI or DWI), you are entitled to the same damages as if the person was just ordinarily negligent. The next question becomes are you entitled to anything extra because the person was drunk.
In Florida, you may be entitled to punitive damages when someone causes an accident because they were intoxicated. See, Ingram v. Pettit, 340 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1976); Zuckerman v. Robinson, 846 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). See also, Florida Statute sections 768.72 and 768.73, both pasted below. Punitive damages are meant to “punish” a defendant for his or her conduct. There are too many part of the punitive damages statute or case law to discuss but one key part is that punitive damages cannot be more than 3 times compensatory damages or a maximum of $500,000.00. Thus, if a jury were to award compensatory damages of $100,000.00 in total, then under this law no matter what they awarded for punitive damages, it would be capped at $300,000.00 if a punitive damages award was given at a higher amount. Similarly, if the compensatory damages were $200,000.00, then the punitive damages would be capped at $500,000.00.
If you have been the victim of a Drunk Driver (DUI or DWI) in a car accident, please call Drucker Law Offices at 561-483-9199 or 954-755-2120, 305-981-1561, or 561-967-3840 – Principal office in Boca Raton plus satellite offices in Miami, Coral Springs, Boynton Beach, Lake Worth and West Palm Beach. Drucker Law Offices only charges its clients fees and costs if it recovers money for them. Attorney Gary Drucker offers a free consultation in any of the offices referenced above or at your home or in the hospital. Please call the law firm to set an appointment today!
Of course, a case based on a fact pattern such as the one above is unique and any other case should be judged based on the specific facts of the case. The advice in this blog is intended to be general and should not to be used as specific advice for a case, as the slightest difference in the facts could change the result. Also, this blog is, as the web site name suggests, based on Florida law and the laws of any other state could vary significantly from Florida.
768.73 Punitive damages; limitation.—
(1)(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), an award of punitive damages may not exceed the greater of:
1. Three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to each claimant entitled thereto, consistent with the remaining provisions of this section; or
2. The sum of $500,000.
(b) Where the fact finder determines that the wrongful conduct proven under this section was motivated solely by unreasonable financial gain and determines that the unreasonably dangerous nature of the conduct, together with the high likelihood of injury resulting from the conduct, was actually known by the managing agent, director, officer, or other person responsible for making policy decisions on behalf of the defendant, it may award an amount of punitive damages not to exceed the greater of:
1. Four times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to each claimant entitled thereto, consistent with the remaining provisions of this section; or
2. The sum of $2 million.
(c) Where the fact finder determines that at the time of injury the defendant had a specific intent to harm the claimant and determines that the defendant’s conduct did in fact harm the claimant, there shall be no cap on punitive damages.
(d) This subsection is not intended to prohibit an appropriate court from exercising its jurisdiction under s. 768.74 in determining the reasonableness of an award of punitive damages that is less than three times the amount of compensatory damages.
(2)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), punitive damages may not be awarded against a defendant in a civil action if that defendant establishes, before trial, that punitive damages have previously been awarded against that defendant in any state or federal court in any action alleging harm from the same act or single course of conduct for which the claimant seeks compensatory damages. For purposes of a civil action, the term “the same act or single course of conduct” includes acts resulting in the same manufacturing defects, acts resulting in the same defects in design, or failure to warn of the same hazards, with respect to similar units of a product.
(b) In subsequent civil actions involving the same act or single course of conduct for which punitive damages have already been awarded, if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the amount of prior punitive damages awarded was insufficient to punish that defendant’s behavior, the court may permit a jury to consider an award of subsequent punitive damages. In permitting a jury to consider awarding subsequent punitive damages, the court shall make specific findings of fact in the record to support its conclusion. In addition, the court may consider whether the defendant’s act or course of conduct has ceased. Any subsequent punitive damage awards must be reduced by the amount of any earlier punitive damage awards rendered in state or federal court.
(3) The claimant attorney’s fees, if payable from the judgment, are, to the extent that the fees are based on the punitive damages, calculated based on the final judgment for punitive damages. This subsection does not limit the payment of attorney’s fees based upon an award of damages other than punitive damages.
(4) The jury may neither be instructed nor informed as to the provisions of this section.
(5) The provisions of this section shall be applied to all causes of action arising after the effective date of this act.
History.–ss. 52, 65, ch. 86-160; s. 1, ch. 87-42; s. 5, ch. 87-50; s. 1, ch. 88-335; s. 71, ch. 91-282; ss. 2, 3, ch. 92-85; s. 16, ch. 97-94; s. 23, ch. 99-225.
