In Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, the California court held that punitive damages may be assessed where the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of the collision. The court concluded that in order to justify an award of punitive damages on this basis, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. Id.
at 895-896.
This means that a plaintiff must establish a high probability of injury occurring, and not merely foreseeability of an injury arising from driving a vehicle while intoxicated. (Taylor v. Superior Court
(1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 892-893.)
In the case of Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, the Court of Appeals held that driving under the influence may, in appropriate circumstances, evidence a conscious disregard of probable injury to others and be sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. Id.
at 88.
The court in Dawes noted that conscious disregard of the probability of injury to others under the circumstances, as distinguished from foreseeability of injury, must be established to prevail on a claim for punitive damages and that the act of driving while intoxicated, without evidence of circumstances demonstrating the probability of injury to others, is not sufficient alone to support a claim for punitive damages. (Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82,88.)
It is because of this complicated set of laws that the victims of injuries from a drunk driving crash need an attorney on their side who is experienced in prosecuting personal injury cases for driving under the influence.