Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2023-00029889-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 11, 2024

04/12/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00029889-CU-PA-CTL CLARK VS BRUNELLE [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Anthony Brunelle's Motion to Strike is denied.

'[I]n order to justify the imposition of punitive damages [for malicious conduct] the defendant must act with the intent to vex, injure, or annoy, or with a conscious disregard of the plaintiff's rights.' (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895 (emphasis in original).) A typical car accident does not generally support an award of punitive damages. However, where factual allegations demonstrate a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others, such as an intoxicated driver knowingly running a red light, the appropriateness of punitive damages is properly left to the factfinder. (Sumpter v. Matteson (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 928, 936.) Here, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant intentionally drove at over twice the speed limit on a heavily trafficked street in the middle of the afternoon. The Court finds these facts sufficient facts to support a claim for punitive damages.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3024252  8