APPELLATE COURTS DO NOT HAVE CERTIORARI JURISDICTION TO REVIEW A DECISION OF A TRIAL JUDGE GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND A COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE HAS FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF § 768.72.
CARNIVAL CORPORATION, d/b/a CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES, Petitioner, vs. NELSON ISCOA, Respondent.
CASE NO. 3D05-2125
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT
922 So. 2d 359; 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 2737; 31 Fla. L. Weekly D 650
March 1, 2006, Opinion Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner cruise line petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County (Florida) that granted respondent passenger's motion to amend his complaint to add a claim for punitive damages.
OVERVIEW: The passenger sued the cruise line to recover for injuries he allegedly sustained when he fell down an open staircase while on board one of the cruise line's ships. After the passenger learned that other passengers aboard the same vessel had been involved in similar falls, he sought to amend his complaint to state a claim for punitive damages. The cruise line opposed the motion, claiming that as a matter of maritime law, the passenger could not maintain a punitive damages claim and that the evidence did not support such a claim. Nevertheless, the trial court permitted the passenger to amend. The appellate court held that pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 768.72, it lacked certiorari jurisdiction to review the trial court's decision to permit the amendment. Although the court had serious doubts that the "very rare" exception recognized b the Eleventh Circuit was implicated, it was nonetheless bound to deny the cruise line's petition for a writ of certiorari based on the analysis set out in the state supreme court's judicial precedents.
OUTCOME: The petition was denied.
