DAVIS vs JACKSON, et al.

Punitive damages are available in personal injury actions against one who drives while intoxicated. (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890.) “There is a very commonly understood risk which attends every motor vehicle driver who is intoxicated. [citation omitted] One who willfully consumes alcoholic beverage to the point of intoxication, knowing that he thereafter must operate a motor vehicle, thereby combining sharply impaired physical and mental facilities with a vehicle capable of great force and speed, reasonably may be held to exhibit a conscious disregard of the safety of others.

The effect may be lethal whether or not the driver has a history of drunk driving incidents.” (Id. at 897-898.) A claim for punitive damages can be premised on despicable conduct involving consumption of alcoholic beverages. (Id. at 899.) Such alleged conduct demonstrates “such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that his conduct may be called willful or wanton.” (Id.; see also Burg v. Municipal Court (1983) 35 Cal. 3d 257, 262.)

25CV012535: DAVIS vs JACKSON, et al. 12/02/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Punitive Damage Allegations from the Complaint in Department 54

Defendants argue that the allegations are conclusory and that Plaintiff fails to plead any factual circumstances that Defendant Jackson’s conduct of driving under the influence was done in conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences.

Taylor did not lay down any specific guidelines for what exactly must be alleged in connection with such a claim for punitive damages and made clear that the “effect may be lethal whether or not the driver has a history of drunk driving incidents.” (Id. at 898.) Taylor made clear that the essence of the claim was that “Defendant became intoxicated and thereafter drove a car while in that condition, despite his knowledge of the safety hazard he created thereby. This is the essential gravamen of the complaint, and while a history of prior arrests, convictions and mishaps may heighten the probability and foreseeability of an accident, we do not deem these aggravating factors essential prerequisites to the assessment of punitive damages in drunk driving cases.” (Id. at 896-897 [emphasis added].)

Citing to Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 90, Defendants further maintain that Plaintiff's allegations amount to “nothing more than a conclusion lacking in the requisite ultimate facts to establish malice.” (Motion, 5:1.) The allegations are that Defendant “carelessly and negligently operated his vehicle in a reckless manner, in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 23152(a) Section 23153(b) and Section 22350,” was “driving at unsafe speeds,” and “was aware of the probably dangerous consequences of driving while under the influence of alcohol.” (Complaint, pg. 6 at EX-2.)

These are allegations of ultimate fact, not mere conclusions as Defendants suggest. Nonetheless, Plaintiff is silent on any further allegations to demonstrate Defendants’ “conscious and deliberate disregard” of the interests of others, such as whether or not Defendant Jackson voluntarily ingested intoxicating substances to the point of legal intoxication, and then knowingly, willfully, and purposefully operated a motor vehicle on a public street after knowingly, willfully and purposefully ingesting intoxicating substances to the point of legal intoxication, and then operated a vehicle at a high rate of speed and in an erratic manor, under the influence of an intoxicating substance.

Case law has held that allegations that a defendant “voluntarily consumed alcohol, knowing he would then operate a motor vehicle, and drove while drunk, knowing the safety hazard he created and aware of the probable consequences of his conduct which he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid” are sufficient under Taylor, supra, 24 Cal.3d 890. (Busboom v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 550, 552-553.) Plaintiff’s Complaint is currently silent on whether Defendant’s consumption was voluntary, whether he knew he would then operate a motor vehicle, or drove while intoxicated knowing the safety hazards and probably consequences of this conduct.

In support of her position, Plaintiff relies on not on an argument of voluntariness to become intoxicated or a history of criminal convictions, but Defendant’s criminal charges and upcoming arraignment. Without more, Plaintiff’s factual allegations do not demonstrate “such a conscious and deliberate disregard” required under Taylor. (Taylor, supra, 24 Cal.3d at 899.)

Thus, Defendants’ motion to strike is GRANTED, with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012535: DAVIS vs JACKSON, et al. 12/02/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Punitive Damage Allegations from the Complaint in Department 54

serve an amended complaint by no later than December 30, 2025, Response to be filed and served within 30 days thereafter, 35 days if the amended complaint is served by mail. (Although not required by any statute or rule of court, Plaintiff is requested to attach a copy of the instant minute order to the amended complaint to facilitate the filing of the pleading.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012535: DAVIS vs JACKSON, et al. 12/02/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Punitive Damage Allegations from the Complaint in Department 54

Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.