The real test, the court explained, is whether “a reasonable person could conclude, based on the claimant’s evidence, that the defendant committed ‘intentional misconduct’ or ‘gross negligence,'” as those terms are defined in section 768.72(2). The judge does not weigh evidence or decide credibility. And in a second point for claimants, the court held the judge looks only at the claimant’s evidence at this stage, not at any rebuttal the defendant offers.
Trending
- Gold, Crypto or Cash? The 2026 Investor’s Dilemma
- Guiding Plans Through Private Market Decisions
- Can You Deadlift More Than the Average Gym-Goer?
- ‘Every Year After’ Stars Sadie Soverall and Matt Cornett Share How Close They Got
- Stocks Pop on SpaceX IPO, Hormuz Peace Plan: Stock Market Today
- 6 Fruits That Can Help Boost Your Gut Health
- ‘They’ll pay anything to feel better’: the expensive problem of pelvic pain | Well actually
- Florida Supreme Court rejects tougher test for pleading punitive damages
