Persaud v. Cortes
219 So. 3d 241
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- November 2008: Persaud rear-ends Santiago’s vehicle, which kills passenger Joshua Batista and injures Santiago; Persaud later convicted of DUI manslaughter and sentenced to two life terms.
- Appellees sued Persaud for wrongful death and negligence and later sought punitive damages based on Persaud’s high BAC (.302%).
- After the compensatory phase (verdicts totaling ~$319,563), the trial proceeded to a bifurcated punitive damages phase.
- At the charge conference, Persaud requested the standard jury instruction allowing consideration of a defendant’s financial resources and the additional sentence: “However, you may not award an amount that would financially destroy the defendant.” The court gave the financial-resources instruction but omitted the ‘‘financially destroy’’ language.
- Persaud’s mother testified at trial about Persaud’s lack of assets and employment; no contrary evidence was introduced. The jury awarded $750,000 (Cortes) and $500,000 (Santiago) in punitive damages.
- Persaud appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by refusing the ‘‘financially destroy’’ instruction; the appellate court reversed and remanded for a new punitive damages trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing to give the ‘‘you may not award an amount that would financially destroy the defendant’’ instruction | Persaud: Requested instruction was proper because he sought it and presented evidence of net worth via his mother; omission prejudiced him | Appellees: No need for instruction because Persaud offered no pretrial notice of net-worth exhibits and did not intend to establish finances | Court: Reversed — Persaud requested the instruction and presented evidence of lack of assets, so the ‘‘financially destroy’’ language should have been given; remanded for new punitive damages trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Wransky v. Dalfo, 801 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (net-worth evidence can limit punitive award)
- Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1977) (instruction on defendant’s financial condition requires evidence of net worth)
- Rinaldi v. Aaron, 314 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1975) (same principle regarding financial-evidence requirement)
- Feliciano v. School Bd. of Palm Beach Cty., 776 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (written-requested instructions preserved for appeal without further objection)