This case is the landmark case when trying to get a punitive damages award against a Corporation who is responsible for an west palm beach car accident, or other personal injury case

Supreme Court of Florida.

Charles P. SCHROPP, Petitioner,

v.

CROWN EUROCARS, INC., etc, et al., Respondents.

No. 83522.

March 16, 1995.

Rehearing Denied May 25, 1995.

This case is the landmark case when trying to get a punitive damages award against a Corporation who is responsible for an west palm beach car accident, or other personal injury case where you client has sustained serious bodily injury.

What this case says is that punitive damages which are called punishment damages and are cap-less for an intentional tort such as battery or a person who hits and injures another while driving drunk, can be awarded against a corporation in one of two ways:

A review of the case law in Florida reveals two methods have been established by which a corporation may be held liable for punitive damages: (1) vicarious liability based on the willful and malicious actions of an employee with a finding of independent negligent conduct by the corporation; or (2) direct liability based on the willful and malicious actions of managing agents of the corporation.

Direct liability: This means that a managing agent of the corporation him self got drunk for example and went down the had and killed some victim. Or a corporate officer himself picked up a baseball bat and took it to the head of some patron because the patron had a blue shirt on.

Vicarious Liability: In order to establish corporate vicarious liability for punitive damages, it is necessary to establish that there was wrongful and wanton misconduct by employee, coupled with some of fault on part of employer which foresee ably contributed to plaintiff's injury, with ordinary negligence sufficing. This means that an employee the corporation him self got drunk for example and went down the had and killed some victim. Or an employee picked up a baseball bat and took it to the head of some patron because the patron had a blue shirt on. And the employee was negligently hired by the corporation.

Under the vicarious theory the plaintiff must meet the forseeability test:

??

“Although the misconduct of the employee, upon which the vicarious liability of the employer for punitive damages is based, must be willful and wanton, it is not necessary that the fault of the employer, independent of his employee's conduct, also be willful and wanton. It is sufficient that the plaintiff allege and prove some fault on the part of the employer which foreseeably contributed to the plaintiff's injury to make him vicariously liable for punitive damages.”

Further the Court states:

“In order to establish corporate vicarious liability for punitive damages, it is necessary to establish that there was wrongful and wanton misconduct by employee, coupled with some of fault on part of employer which foreseeably contributed to plaintiff's injury, with ordinary negligence sufficing. (Per Overton, J., with four Justices concurring specially.)

This landmark case is the progeny of the Mercury motors case, and is a gift from the holy Lord himself! I hope that this information will be ammunition to those personal injury lawyers who seek justice for their client or money for their own pockets, and inadvertently do justice for their own clients.