TAYLOR V. SUPERIOR COURT 24 Cal.3d 890, 598 P.2d 854, 157 Cal.Rptr. 693 (1979) CASE BRIEF

TAYLOR V. SUPERIOR COURT
24 Cal.3d 890, 598 P.2d 854, 157 Cal.Rptr. 693 (1979)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This is an appeal for the reinstatement of a claim of punitive damages. Taylor (P) sought a writ of mandate to review an order from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County that sustained Stille's (D) demurrer to P's claim for punitive damages occasioned by D's drunken driving in a personal injury action. P contends that D's conscious disregard of the risk of drunk driving was sufficient evidence of the malice required by Cal. Civ. Code 3294.
FACTS: Taylor (P) was injured in an automobile accident by Stille (D). P alleged that D had 'acted with a conscious disregard' for P's safety. The complaint alleged that D was, and for a substantial period of time had been, an alcoholic 'well aware of the serious nature of his alcoholism' and of his 'tendency, habit, history, practice, proclivity, or inclination to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.' It was also alleged that D was aware of the dangerousness of his driving while intoxicated. D had previously caused a serious automobile accident while under the influence, and had been arrested and convicted for drunken driving on numerous prior occasions. At the time of the accident occurred, D was transporting alcoholic beverages, and 'was simultaneously driving while consuming an alcoholic beverage' and was 'under the influence of intoxicants.' D moved to dismiss the claim for punitive damages, which was granted. P then sought a writ of mandate to require the judge to reinstate the claim for punitive damages.

ISSUE:


RULE OF LAW:


HOLDING AND DECISION:


LEGAL ANALYSIS:





Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com




© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner

No comments:

Post a Comment