St. Petersburg Sheraton Corporation v. Stuart
242 So.2d 185 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An award of punitive damages for negligence requires proof of conduct that is gross and flagrant, evincing a reckless disregard for human life or a conscious indifference to consequences, which is a higher standard than simple negligence.
Facts:
- On December 15, 1966, Laura H. Stuart and her husband attended a banquet at the Sheraton Inn in St. Petersburg.
- The headwaiter, Carmellini, began preparing cherries jubilee, a flaming dessert, in the presence of the guests, approximately twelve to fifteen feet from Mrs. Stuart.
- Carmellini was a chef with thirty-five years of experience and had prepared flaming dishes over five hundred times without a prior accident.
- After the initial ignition of the cherries, Carmellini repeatedly added more 'Flambe,' a flammable alcoholic liquid, to the pan.
- On approximately the ninth time he added the liquid, the flame flashed back from the pan, sending a stream of flaming liquid that struck and burned Mrs. Stuart.
- Carmellini later stated he thought the flame in the pan was extinguished when he poured the additional liquid.
- Some witnesses testified that Carmellini 'appeared' to be intoxicated and that his behavior was 'erratic,' but there was no direct evidence that he had been drinking.
Procedural Posture:
- Laura H. Stuart and P. Frank Stuart filed a personal injury lawsuit against St. Petersburg Sheraton Corporation in a Florida trial court.
- The trial court subsequently granted the Stuarts' motion to add International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation (I.T. & T.) as a defendant on an alter ego theory.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict for the Stuarts, awarding $10,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages against both defendants.
- The trial court entered a final judgment consistent with the jury's verdict.
- St. Petersburg Sheraton and I.T. & T. (appellants) appealed the judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
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 chef's negligent act of pouring a flammable liquid onto an already-lit dessert, resulting in injury to a patron, constitute conduct so gross and flagrant as to warrant an award of punitive damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Pierce, Acting Chief Judge
No. A chef's negligent act of pouring a flammable liquid onto an already-lit dessert, while careless, does not meet the high standard of gross and flagrant conduct required for an award of punitive damages. The court's reasoning is that punitive damages are reserved for conduct showing wantonness, recklessness, or a conscious indifference to the safety of others, which is equivalent to an intentional violation. Here, the chef's actions constituted simple negligence, not gross negligence. His extensive experience and history of preparing the dish safely, coupled with his belief that the flame was out, negates the inference of a reckless disregard for safety. The evidence suggesting he 'appeared' intoxicated was too speculative to elevate his negligence to the level required for punitive damages. Therefore, the issue of punitive damages should not have been submitted to the jury. The court also reversed the judgment against I.T.&T., finding the plaintiffs failed to prove a de facto merger or that the subsidiary hotel was a mere alter ego of the parent corporation.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and reinforces the distinction between simple negligence and the gross negligence required to sustain an award of punitive damages in Florida. It establishes that even an act involving a foreseeable risk of harm, if not accompanied by evidence of wantonness or a conscious disregard for a known and imminent danger, will only support compensatory, not punitive, damages. This decision makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to recover punitive damages in personal injury cases based on accidental conduct, requiring them to prove a defendant's culpable state of mind or conduct equivalent to an intentional tort. It also highlights the formal requirements for piercing the corporate veil, confirming that parent company liability is not established merely by stock ownership or public relations statements.
