Florida Statute 768.73 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XLV
TORTS

Chapter 768
NEGLIGENCE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 768.73

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.

F.S. 768.73 on Google Scholar

F.S. 768.73 on Casetext

Amendments to 768.73

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 768.73

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 768.73.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 768.73

Total Results: 20

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Lourdes , Jones, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Yolanda Alvarez

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-06-05

Snippet: punitive damages. Defendants contend that section 768.73(2), 1 Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.

Stefanny Sommers, etc. v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-03-06

Snippet: concluded that the current version of section 768.73(2), Florida Statutes, applied to Sommers’ wrongful

Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Odaima Garcia, etc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-11-15

Snippet: Defendant's Renewed Motion Invoking Section 768.73(2), Florida Statutes; and Motion for Directed

Brinda Coates, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-01-05

Snippet: rephased question implicates two statutes, sections 768.73 and 768.74, Florida Statutes (1997), that govern

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. BRYAN RINTOUL, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Edward Caprio

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2022-05-11

Snippet: Damages In 1999, the Legislature amended section 768.73 to prohibit punitive damage awards against a defendant

R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. v. MYRON KAPLAN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sheila Kaplan

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2022-03-16

Snippet: argument that punitive damages were barred by section 768.73, Florida Statutes, based on our previous decision

R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. SANDRA L. MATTSON, as personal representative of the estate of Eleanor Konzelman

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2022-03-16

Snippet: concluded that the pre-1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, applies in an Engle progeny

Mary E. Sheffield, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2021-11-18

Snippet: tort reform act, the Legislature amended section 768.73, Florida Statutes, to among other things presumptively

R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. v. MYRON KAPLAN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sheila Kaplan

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2021-06-23

Snippet: claim that punitive damages are barred by section 768.73(2)(a), Florida Statutes, based on R.J. Reynolds

JOYCE HARDIN, etc. v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2020-12-16

Snippet: verdict pursuant to the post-1999 version of section 768.73(2), Florida Statutes. Because we affirm the main

VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. CHERYL OHEL

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2020-10-14

Snippet: punitive damages. The provisions of ss. 768.72 and 768.73 do not apply to this section. The judgment

R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. LESLIE SCHLEFSTEIN, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF DAWN SCHLEFSTEIN

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-08-28

Snippet: that they never invoked the provisions of section 768.73(2), Florida Statutes (2018) in the lower court

THE EVENT DEPOT CORP. v. ROBERT FRANK

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-04-24

Citation: 269 So. 3d 559

Snippet: legislature also made substantive revisions to section 768.73, Florida 4 The Florida State University College

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Sheffield

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-02-08

Citation: 266 So. 3d 1230

Snippet: damages statute is the 1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, which was in effect when the

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Sheffield

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-02-08

Citation: 266 So. 3d 1230

Snippet: damages statute is the 1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, which was in effect when the

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. STANLEY MARTIN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CAROLE MARTIN

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-12-12

Snippet: declining to apply the post-1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, which bars successive awards

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. STANLEY MARTIN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CAROLE MARTIN

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-12-12

Citation: 262 So. 3d 769

Snippet: declining to apply the post-1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, which bars successive awards

R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. ALAN KONZELMAN, etc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-05-09

Citation: 248 So. 3d 134

Snippet: in holding that the pre-1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, applies in an Engle progeny

Joan Schoeff, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-12-14

Snippet: three times the compensatory award. See, e.g., § 768.73(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2011). The unreduced compensatory

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Andy R. Allen Sr., as Personal Rep. etc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-10-18

Citation: 228 So. 3d 684

Snippet: damages. Chapter 99-225, section 23, amended section 768.73, Florida Statutes, to impose a stricter cap on