| Venue: | CA SC |
| Facts: | Stille has a long and sorry history of alcoholism. He's been in accidents, yadda-yadda. He gets in another one, injuring Taylor. |
| Posture: | Suit to compel the court to reinstate Taylor's claim for punitive damages, which was dismissed by the trial judge. |
| Issue: | Are punitive damages appropriate here? |
| Holding: | Yes: peremptory write of mandate to overrule the dumurrer. I can't believe I just wrote that. |
| Rule: | Punitive damages may be appropriate to deter similar future conduct, and for the sake of example. |
| Reasoning: | Mandamus is only granted when it appears that the trial court has
deprived a party of an opportunity to plead a cause or defence,
and this relief might prevent a needless and expensive trial
and reversal.
Generally punitive damages are allowed only when there has been opression, fraud, or malice (express or implied). Something more than the mere commission of a tort, in other words. Here, we've got a fairly conscious disregard for the safety of others. Plus, we want to send a message. |
| Dicta: | Dissent: We have criminal law for punishing wrongdoers, and we have a legislature that specifies what the punishment should be. With that in mind, punitive damages are basically double punishment. It also nullifies insurance coverage, because insurers aren't liable for losses intentionally caused by the insured. |