A Quick Glance at Your Phone: Not Enough for Punitive Damages in Florida
In a significant ruling, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal clarified when cell phone use while driving crosses the line from negligence to reckless misconduct deserving punitive damages. The case, Creech v. Santomassino, demonstrates that not every instance of distracted driving meets the high threshold for punitive damages. Here’s what happened and why it matters.
The Case: What Happened?
The defendant, driving a truck, collided with a golf cart at an intersection. The key dispute was which driver had the green light. During his deposition, the defendant admitted hearing a text notification, glancing down at his phone to see his wife had texted him, but not responding to the text. He acknowledged that texting while driving is reckless.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s glance at his phone was enough to show a “conscious disregard” for safety and sought to amend the lawsuit to include punitive damages. To bolster their claim, the plaintiff cited:
- Reports equating cell phone distraction to drunk driving.
- Examples of courts allowing punitive damages in texting-and-driving cases.
The trial court allowed the plaintiff to amend, citing the dangerous circumstances—Halloween, heavy traffic, and the defendant’s admission of negligence.
What Are Punitive Damages?
Punitive damages are not meant to compensate the injured party but to punish the wrongdoer for outrageous or reckless conduct. Florida law requires proof of behavior equivalent to criminal manslaughter—conduct that demonstrates intentional disregard for the safety of others.
The Appellate Court’s Decision
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s ruling. Here’s why:
- The “Glance” Was Not Enough:
The evidence showed the defendant glanced at his phone but did not actively engage with it (e.g., reading or responding to the text). The court found this momentary glance was not sufficient to show recklessness or gross negligence. - Negligence vs. Punitive Conduct:
While the defendant’s actions may have been negligent, the court emphasized that negligence is different from the kind of outrageous misconduct needed for punitive damages. - Gatekeeping Standards:
Trial courts have a responsibility to deny amendments for punitive damages unless there’s clear and convincing evidence that a reasonable jury could find the defendant’s actions outrageous or reprehensible. In this case, the plaintiff’s evidence fell short. - Legal Precedent:
The court compared this case to a prior ruling (Mercer v. Sadler Creek) where a driver held a phone in foggy conditions but didn’t actively use it. The court concluded that passive or minimal contact with a phone does not amount to reckless behavior.
Why Does This Matter?
- This decision reinforces the high standard required to pursue punitive damages in Florida. A distracted glance at a phone, while dangerous, does not automatically rise to the level of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. For plaintiffs, this means that claims for punitive damages must be supported by evidence showing more than ordinary negligence.
- For drivers, it’s a reminder to stay focused—but also an indication that courts will carefully differentiate between momentary lapses and reckless disregard for safety.
Takeaway for Florida Drivers
- Distracted driving is always risky, but as this case shows, not all distractions are created equal under the law. A quick glance at your phone might be negligent, but it’s not enough for a court to punish you with punitive damages. However, keeping your eyes on the road is still the best way to avoid accidents—and lawsuits altogether.
- For more legal insights on Florida cases, visit my blog. If you’ve been injured in an accident, JUST CALL GABE for a free consultation!
