## Facts

- In September 1999, Michael Johnson failed to stop at a stop-sign-controlled intersection and collided with Sarah Bolsta’s oncoming vehicle.
- Bolsta’s vehicle was totaled, and she suffered serious injuries, including a broken kneecap and permanent knee damage.
- Witnesses reported that immediately after the crash Johnson removed beer bottles from his vehicle and broke them on the road.
- Johnson was uninsured.
- About two hours after the accident, Johnson’s blood-alcohol concentration was measured at 0.156.
- Johnson reported consuming alcohol shortly before driving and admitted being somewhat under the influence.
- At the time of the collision, Johnson’s license was suspended due to a prior DUI conviction, and he had multiple prior convictions for driving with a suspended license.
- Johnson entered no-contest pleas to DUI (second offense) and driving with a suspended license (fourth offense).
- Bolsta sued Johnson and her uninsured-motorist carrier for compensatory and punitive damages; Johnson defaulted.
- The trial court awarded $131,921.35 in compensatory damages but denied punitive damages for lack of proof of malice.

## Issues

1. Whether Johnson’s intoxicated driving, coupled with a suspended license and prior related convictions, constituted malicious, intentional, and outrageous wrongdoing sufficient to support punitive damages under Vermont law.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial of punitive damages.
- The court held that Johnson’s conduct, though egregious and criminal, did not satisfy Vermont’s stringent malice-based standard for punitive damages.
- The compensatory damages award remained intact.

## Legal Principles

- Punitive damages in Vermont are available only upon proof of malice: intentional and deliberate wrongdoing with a character of outrage frequently associated with crime.
- Malice may be shown by actual ill will or by conduct reflecting a reckless or wanton disregard of the plaintiff’s rights, but the threshold is high.
- Criminal conduct, gross negligence, or ordinary recklessness—even when severe—does not by itself establish the malice required for punitive damages in a negligence-based personal-injury action.
- Appellate review focuses on whether the trial court applied the correct punitive-damages standard to the evidentiary record; absent legal error, denial of punitive damages will be affirmed.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the plaintiff proved serious injury caused by intoxicated, unlawful driving but did not prove the malice Vermont requires for punitive damages; therefore, punitive damages were properly denied and the judgment was affirmed.


Bolsta v. Johnson, 848 A.2d 306 (Vt. 2004)