Taylor v. Superior Court
24 Cal. 3d 890, 598 P.2d 854, 157 Cal. Rptr. 693 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The act of operating a motor vehicle while voluntarily intoxicated may constitute malice under California Civil Code § 3294, justifying an award of punitive damages, if the circumstances demonstrate a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences to the safety of others.
Facts:
- Defendant Stille was an alcoholic who was well aware of the serious nature of his condition and his tendency to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
- Stille was also aware of the dangerousness of his driving while intoxicated.
- Stille had previously caused a serious automobile accident while driving under the influence and had been arrested and convicted for drunken driving on numerous prior occasions.
- At the time of the accident, Stille had recently completed a period of probation for a drunk driving conviction, a condition of which was that he refrain from driving for at least six hours after consuming alcohol.
- Stille also had an additional criminal drunk driving charge pending against him at the time of the accident.
- Stille accepted employment that required him to transport alcoholic beverages in his car.
- On the day of the incident, Stille was driving while consuming an alcoholic beverage and was under the influence of intoxicants when his car collided with a car driven by plaintiff Taylor, causing Taylor serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Taylor sued defendant Stille and others in a California trial court for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident.
- Taylor's complaint sought both compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.
- Stille filed a demurrer to the complaint, challenging the legal sufficiency of the claim for punitive damages.
- The trial court sustained Stille's demurrer, striking the prayer for punitive damages from the complaint.
- Taylor then petitioned the California Supreme Court for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to overrule the demurrer and reinstate his claim for punitive damages.
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 voluntarily driving while intoxicated, with knowledge of the serious risks involved, constitute malice sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294?
Opinions:
Majority - Richardson, J.
Yes. Operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated may constitute malice sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages if the act is performed with a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences. The court held that malice under Civil Code § 3294 does not require a specific intent to injure a particular person. It can be established by conduct showing a 'conscious disregard of the plaintiff's rights' or safety. A driver who wilfully consumes alcohol to the point of intoxication, knowing they must then operate a motor vehicle, combines impaired faculties with a dangerous instrument and may reasonably be held to exhibit a conscious disregard for the safety of others. The court emphasized the strong public policy interest in deterring the 'incalculable cost' of drunk driving. To the extent that Gombos v. Ashe held otherwise, it is disapproved.
Concurring - Bird, C. J.
Yes, but only under the aggravated circumstances of this specific case. While concurring in the judgment to allow the punitive damages claim to proceed, this opinion disagrees with the majority's broad holding that mere drunk driving constitutes malice. Simple recklessness is not malice. However, in this case, Stille's extensive history of prior drunk driving convictions, accidents, and awareness of the consequences could allow a jury to find that he acted with a conscious indifference to the probable harm to others, which does rise to the level of malice. The majority's broader rule risks opening a 'Pandora’s Box' of punitive damages for conduct that is merely reckless, not malicious.
Dissenting - Clark, J.
No. Driving while intoxicated does not establish the malice essential to an award of punitive damages. The central element of malice is 'animus malus' or evil motive, which is not present in the typical drunk driving case. The driver's judgment is impaired, and while the conduct is reckless, it is not born of a motive to vex, harass, or injure. The majority's 'conscious disregard' standard blurs the line between malice and negligence. Furthermore, allowing punitive damages in these cases will have negative consequences, including the potential nullification of all insurance coverage for the incident, which could leave victims unable to recover even compensatory damages from drivers without significant personal assets. The deterrent effect is also questionable, as substantial criminal penalties already exist.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded the concept of 'malice' for punitive damages in California tort law. It established that a defendant's subjective state of mind can be inferred from the objective danger of their conduct, allowing extremely reckless acts like drunk driving to be treated as malicious. By rejecting the need for a specific intent to harm, the court lowered the bar for plaintiffs seeking punitive damages in cases involving intoxicated tortfeasors. This case created a powerful tool for punishing and deterring drunk driving through the civil justice system, reflecting a strong public policy response to the societal harm caused by this behavior.
