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
- Social Security COLA Estimate Is Now 3.5% for 2027
- 3 Forgotten Biceps Exercises for Bigger and Wider Arms
- How to Make the Most of Greece’s Shoulder Season, According to Condé Nast Traveler Specialists
- Apple’s New Foldable iPhone Duo Poised for Strong Sales
- Will There Be ‘The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives’ Season 6?
- Warren presses insurance regulators for answers on private credit ties as Walter probe widens
- How Advisers Can Build Up the Industry’s Appeal
- 9 Easy Breakfast Ideas for Type 2 Diabetes
