A plaintiff seeking damages for injuries resulting from an assault and/or battery tort action, may seek punitive damages. A plaintiff may recover punitive damages for assault and battery only if the trier of fact, based on clear and convincing evidence, finds that the defendant was personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. "Intentional misconduct" means that the defendant had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that injury or damage to the claimant would result and, despite the knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage. "Gross negligence" means that the defendant's conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of the people exposed to the conduct.

A West Palm Beach intentional torts lawyer specializing in assault and battery will advise a plaintiff that before punitive damages can be awarded, the trier of fact must first find the defendant liable for either compensatory or nominal damages for committing the assault and battery. Additionally, a West Palm Beach assault and battery lawyer will plead the necessary facts in the complaint to sustain a punitive damages claim in the future. Accordingly, once the court is satisfied that a punitive damage claim can be made, then the West Palm Beach assault and battery lawyer will seek leave to amend the complaint to include the claim for punitive damages.

However, when requesting punitive damages, evidence of provocation on behalf of the plaintiff may be used to mitigate the plaintiff's damages. "Provocation" is defined as abusive, insulting, or defamatory language. If the plaintiff's provocative language occurs immediately prior to the defendant's assault or battery, and provokes the defendant into assaulting the plaintiff, then the trier of fact may consider provocation as grounds for refusing to award punitive damages. On the other hand, any evidence of provocative language does not justify the defendant to commit an assault or battery on the plaintiff. This is true even if the plaintiff who engaged in the provocation intended to goad the defendant into committing the assault and/or battery.