Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Doe
2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 14492, 2010 WL 3766814, 44 So. 3d 230 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida law, a trial court must conduct an evidentiary inquiry and find a reasonable evidentiary basis for the recovery of punitive damages before permitting a claimant to amend a complaint to add such a claim. Failure to follow this statutory procedure constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.
Facts:
- At approximately 2:05 a.m. on April 29, 2004, an extremely intoxicated Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. (RCCL) crewman, Alexander Rutta, began knocking on passenger cabin doors.
- Rutta gained entry into two cabins before being pushed out; the passengers from these cabins called an emergency number and were told security was busy trying to locate a missing child.
- Before security could respond, Rutta knocked on the cabin door of Jane Doe and her minor daughter, Sara Doe.
- When Jane Doe opened the door, Rutta pushed his way into the cabin and grabbed her by the shoulders.
- Jane Doe managed to push Rutta out of the cabin and called the purser's office, where she was also told that security was busy and would respond when available.
- Jane Doe then called another passenger, who arrived and restrained Rutta until security finally appeared.
- The following morning, all affected passengers, including the Does, reported that Rutta appeared intoxicated and lost, not malicious, and they signed non-prosecution forms.
- RCCL terminated Rutta's employment and he was deported.
Procedural Posture:
- Jane Doe and Sara Doe filed a lawsuit against Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. (RCCL) in a Florida trial court, alleging claims including negligence, assault, and battery.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of RCCL on the plaintiffs' claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- RCCL stipulated to its negligence, leaving the issues of causation and damages for trial.
- Approximately one month before trial, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add a claim for punitive damages.
- The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend.
- The trial court also issued an order on RCCL's motion for a protective order regarding discovery, denying it in part.
- RCCL petitioned the Florida Third District Court of Appeal for a writ of certiorari to review and quash both the order allowing punitive damages and parts of the discovery order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court depart from the essential requirements of law by granting a plaintiff's motion to amend a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages without first conducting the mandatory evidentiary inquiry required by Florida Statutes § 768.72 to determine if a reasonable basis for such damages exists?
Opinions:
Majority - Rothenberg, Judge.
Yes. A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law when it fails to conduct the mandatory evidentiary inquiry before allowing a claim for punitive damages. Florida Statute § 768.72 creates a substantive legal right for a defendant not to be subjected to a punitive damages claim, and its associated financial discovery, until a trial court determines there is a reasonable evidentiary basis for such recovery. The Florida Supreme Court in Globe Newspaper Co. v. King held that certiorari review is appropriate to determine if this procedural requirement has been met. Here, the trial court explicitly instructed the parties to avoid arguing the facts, stating his historical practice was to grant such motions. The court made no factual findings and based its ruling on a non-binding legal opinion, not on an evaluation of whether the evidence supported a claim that RCCL's conduct rose to the level of intentional misconduct or gross negligence as required by the statute. This failure to follow the mandated procedure renders the order invalid.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the mandatory, non-discretionary nature of the procedural gatekeeping function trial courts must perform under § 768.72 before allowing punitive damages claims. It clarifies that a judge's personal practice or 'historical perspective' cannot supplant the statutory requirement for an evidence-based inquiry. The ruling protects defendants from the significant burden and potential prejudice of facing punitive damages claims and invasive financial discovery unless a plaintiff first makes a sufficient factual showing. This solidifies the principle that the right to be free from an unsubstantiated punitive damages claim is a substantive one, justifying immediate appellate review through a writ of certiorari.
