## Facts

- Cameron Charles Taylor sued Clair William Stille for personal injuries arising from an automobile collision, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- Taylor alleged Stille was a long-time alcoholic who knew of his alcoholism and his habit of driving while intoxicated.
- Taylor alleged Stille had multiple prior drunk-driving arrests and convictions, had recently completed probation for a drunk-driving offense with a condition restricting driving after drinking, and had a pending drunk-driving charge at the time of the collision.
- Taylor alleged Stille had previously caused a serious accident while driving intoxicated.
- Taylor alleged that, despite this history and knowledge, Stille drove while intoxicated, collided with Taylor, and caused serious injuries.
- The superior court sustained Stille’s general demurrer to the punitive-damages allegations, leaving only compensatory damages in the case.
- Taylor sought a writ of mandate directing the superior court to reinstate the punitive-damages claim.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations that a defendant drove while intoxicated, with extensive prior drunk-driving history and awareness of the danger, can plead “malice” (implied malice) supporting punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294.
2. Whether a categorical rule barring punitive damages in drunk-driving personal-injury cases absent intent to injure is consistent with § 3294.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court granted mandate relief and directed the superior court to vacate its order sustaining the demurrer to the punitive-damages allegations and to overrule the demurrer as to those allegations.
- The court held that operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated may constitute “malice” under Civil Code § 3294 when the circumstances show a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences.
- The court disapproved prior authority that treated drunk driving as incapable of supporting punitive damages absent an actual intent to harm.
- The court emphasized it was not holding that punitive damages are available in every drunk-driving case; availability depends on the pleaded and proven circumstances showing conscious disregard.

## Legal Principles

- Civil Code § 3294 permits punitive damages for “oppression, fraud, or malice,” and “malice” includes implied malice shown by willful or conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.
- Punitive damages do not require proof of personal animosity or a specific intent to injure when the defendant’s conduct reflects conscious disregard of known, serious risks.
- In drunk-driving cases, allegations such as repeated prior drunk-driving convictions, prior alcohol-related accidents, probationary restrictions, and continued intoxicated driving may support an inference of conscious disregard sufficient to plead implied malice.
- A demurrer should not be sustained against punitive-damages allegations where the pleaded facts, if proved, could support a finding of implied malice under § 3294.

## Conclusion

The court held that punitive damages may be pursued against an intoxicated driver when the allegations support implied malice—conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences—and ordered reinstatement of the punitive-damages claim because the pleaded history and circumstances could support such a finding under Civil Code § 3294.


Taylor v. Superior Court, 24 Cal. 3d 890 (Cal. 1979)