355 So.3d 476
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2022Background
- Nicholas Blakely was a Stetson University scholarship football player who collapsed and died after practice on August 28, 2017. Trainers monitored him during the practice after he reported dizziness, chest tightness, cough, and congestion; he later collapsed and could not be revived.
- Blakely had complained of chest pain during a prior April 2017 practice; that incident was not documented or acted upon, and Stetson did not require a pre-season physical after summer break.
- Blakely signed two identical Athletic Participation Release/Waiver forms in 2016 and 2017 that broadly released Stetson and related parties from “any and all liability,” but did not expressly state it released the university for its own negligence and contained other ambiguous language.
- The Estate sued Stetson for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty; Stetson moved for summary judgment relying on the releases, and the trial court granted summary judgment for Stetson.
- On appeal, the Fifth District reversed summary judgment, holding the release was not clear and unambiguous; the court also reversed the trial court’s order permitting amendment to add punitive damages, finding the plaintiff’s evidence insufficient to support punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the athletic release unambiguously bars claims against Stetson (including for negligence) | The release is ambiguous and fails to mention negligence; language (e.g., requiring obedience to staff, saying the release is “for myself”) can be read to limit or invert its scope | The release’s broad language releases Stetson from "any and all liability" arising from participation and thus bars the suit | Release unenforceable: not sufficiently clear and unambiguous to bar negligence claims given omission of "negligence" and conflicting language (must be construed against drafter); summary judgment reversed |
| Whether plaintiff could amend to add punitive damages based on gross negligence allegations | Alleged systemic failures (no ECG screening, no emergency plan/training, ignoring symptoms) show gross negligence supporting punitive damages | Evidence does not rise to level of gross and flagrant negligence required for punitive damages | Amendment for punitive damages reversed: record/proffer insufficient to meet the high gross-negligence standard |
Key Cases Cited
- UCF Athletics Ass’n v. Plancher, 121 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (exculpatory clauses must clearly and unequivocally show intent to release negligence; ambiguous language construed against drafter)
- Sanislo v. Give Kids the World, Inc., 157 So. 3d 256 (Fla. 2015) (an exculpatory clause may bar negligence claims when the release, read as a whole, clearly conveys release of negligence; omission of the word "negligence" is a factor but not dispositive)
- Valladares v. Bank of Am. Corp., 197 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016) (describing the high standard for punitive damages: conduct must evince reckless disregard of human life or conscious indifference)
- Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. Ballard, 749 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1999) (classic formulation of the degree of culpability required to support punitive damages)
- Est. of Despain v. Avante Grp., Inc., 900 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (standard of review and view of record when evaluating a motion to amend to add punitive-damage claims)