768.736
Punitive damages; exceptions for intoxication.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
768.736 Punitive damages; exceptions for intoxication.—Sections 768.725 and 768.73 do not apply to any defendant who, at the time of the act or omission for which punitive damages are sought, was under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug to the extent that the defendant’s normal faculties were impaired, or who had a blood or breath alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher.
History.—s. 25, ch. 99-225.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Matalon v. Lee
Matalon v. Lee (2003)
“…damages by "clear and convincing evidence" would not have applied, since intoxication was the basis for such damages. § 768.736, Fla. Stat.”
Zuckerman v. Robinson (2003)
“[4] See § 768.736, Fla. Stat. (2002). [5] See 11 U.”
Swanson v. Robles (2013)
“Section 768.736 removes the cap on punitive damages if the jury finds that the defendant was impaired by drugs or alcohol.”
Amazulu Transport, Inc., and Peter Stuart Welch, Jr. v. Gary Dinkins (2025)
“The Alleged Requirement to Make Affirmative Findings As his second basis for reversal, Welch argues the trial court’s order granting the motion for leave to amend the complaint “failed to make an affirmative finding that 3 This language is consistent with section 768.736,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.