Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Superior Court of Sacramento Cnty.
24 Cal.App.5th 1150, 235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 228 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A company's conduct does not rise to the level of malice required for punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 if it implements substantial, though ultimately imperfect, safety programs and relies on independent contractors for their execution, absent clear and convincing evidence that the company consciously disregarded a known, probable danger or willfully ignored established safety standards.
Facts:
- On September 9, 2015, a gray pine tree came into contact with an overhead power line owned and operated by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).
- This contact ignited the Butte Fire, which burned over 70,000 acres in Amador and Calaveras counties, destroyed hundreds of structures, and resulted in two deaths.
- PG&E had contracted with ACRT, Inc. for vegetation inspection services and Trees, Inc. for tree trimming services around its power lines.
- In October 2014, an ACRT inspector conducted a patrol of the area and recommended that two trees near the eventual 'subject tree' be removed.
- In January 2015, Trees, Inc. removed the two designated trees, allegedly leaving the subject tree exposed, unsupported, and leaning toward the power line.
- ACRT employees inspected the area near the subject tree several times in the year preceding the fire but never identified the subject tree as a danger or reported any compliance issue to PG&E.
- At the time of the fire, PG&E had numerous, well-funded vegetation management programs in place intended to prevent or minimize the risk of wildfires.
- The inspector from ACRT who failed to identify the subject tree as a hazard had not been trained to evaluate the instability of trees left behind after others in a stand are removed.
Procedural Posture:
- Over 2,050 plaintiffs sued Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and its contractors in a California superior court following the Butte Fire.
- The various lawsuits were consolidated into a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding in the Sacramento Superior Court, where a master complaint was filed.
- In the trial court, PG&E filed a motion for summary adjudication, seeking to have the plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 dismissed.
- The trial court initially issued a tentative ruling granting PG&E's motion, but after supplemental briefing and argument, it reversed course and denied the motion.
- PG&E, as petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeal to challenge the trial court's denial of its summary adjudication motion, with the plaintiffs acting as the real parties in interest.
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 utility company's failure to prevent a wildfire caused by its equipment, despite having extensive vegetation management programs and utilizing independent contractors, constitute 'malice' sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294?
Opinions:
Majority - Renner, J.
No. A company's failure to prevent harm does not constitute malice sufficient for punitive damages where the company has made substantial, albeit flawed, efforts to mitigate risk. To prove malice under § 3294, a plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in despicable conduct with a willful and conscious disregard for the safety of others, which requires demonstrating the defendant was aware of probable dangerous consequences and deliberately failed to avoid them. Here, PG&E's implementation of extensive vegetation management programs, its expenditure of significant funds on safety, and its use of contractors to perform inspections negated any inference of malice. The plaintiffs' evidence of flaws in these programs—such as ineffective audits, poor training oversight, and questionable incentives—amounted to, at most, carelessness or negligence, not the 'despicable conduct' required for punitive damages. Unlike the defendant in Romo v. Ford Motor Co., there was no evidence that PG&E consciously ignored its own safety standards or deliberately chose a dangerous course of action for profit. Therefore, no reasonable jury could find clear and convincing proof of malice.
Analysis:
This decision significantly raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs seeking punitive damages against corporations for large-scale, unintentional torts like wildfires. It clarifies that the existence of corporate safety programs, even if they prove ineffective, can serve as a powerful defense against claims of malice. The court's distinction of Romo I signals that liability for punitive damages will likely be reserved for cases where plaintiffs can show a conscious, top-down corporate decision to ignore a known, probable danger, rather than mere systemic failures or negligence in overseeing contractors. This ruling makes it more difficult to hold a corporation liable for punitive damages based on a 'corporate culture' theory unless that culture is shown to include willful and despicable disregard for safety, rather than just bureaucratic incompetence or flawed risk management.
