conscious disregard of the consequences.” Vallejos, 116 So.3d at 552. The fact that a street light on a highway is not functioning creates a certain level of danger by increasing the possibility that diminished lighting conditions may play a role in causing an accident. The widening of the highway, however, meant that a portion of the street lights would be out of service at any one time. The undisputed evidence indicated the heavy e e for almost a year and half without incident. There had been no accidents, no near accidents, no work stoppages, no highway closings, and no other specific problems caused by the non-functioning light. This is not a case where the employer ignored prior dangerous mishaps. See Pyjek v. ValleyCrest Landscape Dev., Inc., 116 So.3d 475, 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (<HOLDING>); Sullivan v. Streeter; 485 So.2d 893, 895
holding the issue of gross negligence was a jury question where a fence worker was crushed by a recently installed palm tree that fell before was replanted and fell again on worker holding that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action holding a landowner not liable for an accident on a country road caused by a tree which fell from the landowners property holding that negligence does not violate the due process clause but reserving the question whether gross negligence does holding inter alia that the issue of whether a naval yard worker was exposed to a manufacturers product was for the jury