In re: Bowman

Filing 71

OPINION AND ORDER denying 66 motion to dismiss demand for punitive damages. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 6/18/2019. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
WILLIAM BOWMAN, as titled
owner of and for a 37’ 2012
Boston
Whaler,
hull
identification
number
BWCE0946B212 her engines,
tackle, and appurtenances,
for
exoneration
from
or
limitation of liability,
Petitioner,
Case No:
_______________________________

2:18-cv-71-FtM-29MRM

BENJAMIN BAIR,
Third Party
Plaintiff
ADAM BOWMAN,
Third Party
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss Claimant's Demand for Punitive Damages (Doc.
#66) filed on April 26, 2019.

Plaintiff filed a Response in

Opposition (Doc. #69) on May 24, 2019.
I.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a Complaint
must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

This obligation “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.”

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(citation omitted).

To survive dismissal, the factual allegations

must be “plausible” and “must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.”

Id. at 555.

See also Edwards v.

Prime Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1291 (11th Cir. 2010).
“more

than

an

accusation.”

unadorned,

Ashcroft

v.

This requires

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
Iqbal,

556

U.S.

662,

678

(2009)

(citations omitted).
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must
accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take
them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89 (2007), but “[l]egal conclusions without adequate
factual support are entitled to no assumption of truth,” Mamani v.
Berzain, 654 F.3d 1148, 1153 (11th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).
II.
Third-party defendant seeks dismissal of the punitive damages
claim in the Third-Party Complaint Against Adam Bowman (Doc. #53)
arguing that the factual basis is inadequate.
that

punitive

circumstances”.

damages

are

available

only

The parties agree
in

“exceptional

In re Amtrak Sunset Ltd. Train Crash in Bayou

Canot, Ala. on Sept. 22, 1993, 121 F.3d 1421, 1429 (11th Cir.
1997).

2

The Third-Party Complaint presents one count of negligence.
The relevant factual allegations are as follows:
10. On or about August 3, 2017, while
Petitioner was onboard, his son, Adam Bowman,
intentionally, recklessly, carelessly, and/or
negligently operated Petitioner’s vessel at or
near the Mouth of the Caloosahatchee River in
Lee County, Florida, in such a manner as to
cause it to collide with Claimant’s 35-foot
1963 Alberg Sailboat while Claimant and Joseph
Lugo were onboard.
11. Specifically, Claimant was operating his
vessel in a no-wake zone going approximately
5 miles per hour just west of the “Miserable
Mile” when he and Mr. Lugo noticed the vessel
Adam Bowman was operating heading towards them
at a high rate of speed.
12. The vessel being operated by Adam Bowman
struck the midship of Claimant’s vessel
causing it to sink. Due to the collision,
Claimant became pinned between his vessel and
Petitioner’s
before
being
subsequently
trapped upside down under water as his vessel
sank. This collision resulted in serious,
traumatic bodily and mental injury to Claimant
as well as excessive property damage.
13. Immediately following the collision, while
Claimant struggled to remove himself from the
wreckage, Adam Bowman and the other passengers
onboard Petitioner’s vessel watched on and did
nothing to assist Claimant and/or failed to
reasonably mitigate the damages created by
their vessel’s operation.
14. Despite Claimant’s repeated requests for
Adam Bowman and/or the other passengers on
Petitioner’s vessel to call 911 and the Fish
and Wildlife Commission (FWC), neither were
contacted.
15. Rather than having an ambulance ready for
Claimant at the marina as would have happened
if the appropriate law enforcement officials

3

were contacted, Adam Bowman and the other
passengers on their vessel took their time to
clean up their vessel, including alcoholic
beverages, before transporting Claimant and
Mr. Lugo to the hospital.
16. Upon arriving at the hospital, Adam Bowman
and the other passengers quickly removed
Claimant and Mr. Lugo from their vehicle
before immediately leaving the scene.
17. As a result of Adam Bowman’s intentional,
willful, reckless, and/or negligent conduct,
Claimant
suffered
traumatic
personal
injuries, severe emotional distress, and lost
property.
18. At all times material hereto, Adam
Bowman’s
willful,
reckless,
and/or
intentional conduct reflected an indifference
to the safety of those around them and can
only be described as a reckless endangering of
the lives of the passengers on Claimant’s
vessel.
19. At all times material hereto, Adam Bowman
knew or should have known that operating a
vessel at a high rate of speed and/or while
intoxicated
constituted
an
unreasonably
dangerous and/or hazardous condition that was
reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to
others. Moreover, Adam Bowman knew that
failing to contact law enforcement following
the collision was unlawful.
(Doc. #53, ¶¶ 10-19.)

In Count One, third-party plaintiff alleges

that Adam Bowman breached a duty of reasonable care by operating
the vessel at high rates of speed in a no wake zone, in an unsafe
and

reckless

manner,

without

proper

training,

and

while

intoxicated, and for failing to notify law enforcement or to
otherwise mitigate damages.

(Id., ¶ 23.)

4

Unless or until the United States Supreme
Court should decide to add state remedies to
the admiralty remedies for personal injury,
personal injury claimants have no claim for
nonpecuniary damages such as loss of society,
loss of consortium or punitive damages, except
in exceptional circumstances such as willful
failure to furnish maintenance and cure to a
seaman, intentional denial of a vessel owner
to furnish a seaworthy vessel to a seaman and
in those very rare situations of intentional
wrongdoing.
In re Amtrak Sunset Ltd. Train Crash in Bayou Canot, Ala. on Sept.
22, 1993, 121 F.3d 1421, 1429 (11th Cir. 1997).

“Punitive damages

have long been an available remedy at common law for wanton,
willful, or outrageous conduct.”
557 U.S. 404, 409 (2009).

Atl. Sounding Co. v. Townsend,

A party “may recover punitive damages

only upon a showing of intentional misconduct.” Crusan v. Carnival
Corp., No. 13-CV-20592, 2015 WL 13743473, at *7 (S.D. Fla. 2015).
This requires showing that Adam Bowman “had actual knowledge of
the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that
injury or damage to the claimant would result and, despite that
knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting
in injury or damage.”

Id. at *8; Bonnell v. Carnival Corp., No.

13-CV-22265, 2014 WL 12580433, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2014).
Taking all the allegations as true, third-party plaintiff
alleges that Adam Bowman operated a vessel in an unsafe and
reckless manner without proper training, in a no-wake zone at a
high rate of speed while intoxicated striking plaintiff’s vessel

5

and causing it to sink.

Bowman and the other passengers watched

and did nothing as plaintiff struggled to remove himself from the
wreckage, and did not call for help.

Instead, Bowman and the other

passengers took time to clean up their vessel, including alcoholic
beverages before finally transporting plaintiff to the hospital.
The Court finds, at this stage of the proceedings, that a plausible
claim for punitive damages has been stated.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Claimant's Demand for Punitive
Damages (Doc. #66) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
June, 2019.

Copies:
Counsel of record

6

18th

day of