Sarah Bolsta v. Michael Johnson
848 A.2d 306 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To justify an award of punitive damages, a defendant's conduct must demonstrate malice, which requires evidence of a bad motive or personal ill will, and cannot be established solely by evidence of recklessness, such as causing injury by driving while intoxicated, even as a repeat offender.
Facts:
- Michael Johnson had a prior conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) and, as a result, his driver's license was suspended.
- Johnson also had three prior convictions for driving with a suspended license.
- On the day of the incident in September 1999, Johnson consumed two beers and three shots in the hour before driving.
- While intoxicated, Johnson failed to stop at an intersection controlled by a stop sign and collided with a vehicle driven by Sarah Bolsta.
- The collision caused Bolsta to suffer several injuries, including a broken kneecap and permanent damage to her knee.
- Immediately after the accident, witnesses saw Johnson removing beer bottles from his vehicle and breaking them on the road.
- Approximately two hours after the accident, a test revealed Johnson had a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.156.
Procedural Posture:
- Sarah Bolsta filed a personal injury lawsuit in a Vermont trial court against Michael Johnson and her own insurer, Concord General Mutual Insurance Co., seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.
- After Johnson failed to answer or appear in court, the trial court granted a default judgment in favor of Bolsta.
- Bolsta reached a settlement with her insurer, which was subsequently dismissed from the lawsuit.
- The trial court held a hearing on damages and awarded Bolsta $131,921.35 in compensatory damages against Johnson.
- The trial court denied Bolsta's motion for punitive damages, concluding that Johnson's conduct did not meet the legal standard for malice.
- Bolsta (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial of punitive damages to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's conduct of causing a motor vehicle accident while driving under the influence of alcohol, as a repeat offender with a suspended license, demonstrate the requisite malice to support an award of punitive damages under Vermont law?
Opinions:
Majority - Unspecified
No. The defendant's conduct does not demonstrate the requisite malice for punitive damages. Under Vermont law, punitive damages are reserved for cases where a defendant's wrongdoing is intentional, deliberate, and demonstrates malice through evidence of a bad motive or personal ill will. Mere negligence or even recklessness, such as driving while intoxicated, is insufficient to meet this high standard. The court explicitly rejected adopting a per se rule that would treat drunk driving as automatic evidence of malice, noting that even a willful violation of the law does not suffice without a showing of bad faith. Johnson's conduct, while wrongful and reckless, lacked the special circumstances of personal ill will or bad motive necessary to support a finding of actual malice.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a high threshold for punitive damages in Vermont, clearly distinguishing recklessness from the required element of malice. It establishes that even criminal and highly dangerous behavior like repeat-offense drunk driving does not, on its own, warrant punitive damages. The ruling signals that plaintiffs in such cases must present additional, specific evidence of the defendant's bad motive or personal ill will to succeed on a punitive damages claim, thereby shaping litigation strategies and settlement expectations in personal injury law.
Unlock the full brief for Sarah Bolsta v. Michael Johnson