Turo, Inc. v. Cynthia Mobley, et al.
The Sixth District reversed an order granting leave to add a punitive damages claim against car-sharing platform Turo arising from a fatal tire-blowout crash. Applying section 768.72, Florida Statutes, the court held the plaintiffs failed to make the required reasonable showing of either intentional misconduct or gross negligence because Turo lacked actual knowledge of the defective tire-pressure condition and its alleged inaction did not rise to a conscious disregard for safety.
Key facts
- Appellees rented a vehicle listed on Turo's online car-sharing platform; the right rear tire blew out shortly into the drive, causing the vehicle to flip several times, killing one passenger and injuring the others.
- Of the 79 pre-trip inspections before the rental, 55 photographs showed the tire-pressure warning light illuminated, but Turo's corporate representative testified Turo does not review those photos in the normal course of business.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Holdings
- Under section 768.72(2)(a), a punitive damages claim premised on intentional misconduct requires actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct; a defendant's failure to review…
- +1 more holding with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision reinforces the gatekeeping function of section 768.72 for plaintiffs seeking to add punitive damages and is notable for applying that framework to an online platform defendant, drawing a sharp line between… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.