Judge: Glenn R. Salter, Case: 22-1254852, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

The defendant filed a motion to strike the punitive damages allegations in the First Amended Complaint in this personal injury automobile accident case.

This appears to present a matter of first impression in California and, given the ubiquitous of prescription medications and other lawful drug use, may be ripe for appellate review.

As the court explained in its minute orders of July 28, 2022 (ROA 20) and August 3, 2022 (ROA 21), the court believes that punitive damages could be appropriate here if sufficient facts are alleged to show a conscious disregard of the safety and rights of others.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 3294.)  However, the court finds the current allegations (see Attachment 1 to the Amended Form Complaint) insufficient as a matter of law.

An uncontextualized allegation the defendant had suffered a seizure before does not show knowledge of what might happen if he suffered a seizure while driving.  There has to be a nexus of similarity, or tie-in, with the facts of this accident.  Further, the allegation that the defendant “was aware that he had not taken [his seizure] medication in accordance with his prescription when he chose to operate his vehicle at the time of the crash,” is conclusory.  It only asserts he was “aware” he had not taken his medication, not that he “chose” not to and drove anyway knowing the probable consequences of that choice.  As crafted, it might reflect that he simply (and innocently) forgot to take his medication and only realized it later while driving.  (It is unclear whether the final phrase “at the time of the crash” is intended to explain when he initially became aware he had not taken the medication.)  Or it could be read as suggesting he simply (and innocently) made a mistake in how he administered the medication.  (The allegation is he did not take it “in accordance with his prescription,” whatever that means.)

The court concludes, based on this latest iteration of the punitive damage allegations, that the defendant’s motion to strike must be, and is, GRANTED.  The granting of the motion is without leave.  However, should discovery disclose additional facts to support the imposition of punitive damages in this case, the plaintiff may always ask for leave to amend.

The defendant shall give notice.