Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV37624, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37624    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Jasmine Flores (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Steven A. Hernandez (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  The complaint alleges causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence and includes a prayer for punitive damages. 

Defendant now moves to strike the claim for punitive damages and exemplary damages attachment from the complaint.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.

2. Motion to Strike   

Civil Code § 3294(a) states, “[i]n an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” 

Allegations that a defendant exhibited a conscious disregard for the safety of others are sufficient to show malice.  (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-96; see also Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 90.)  To properly allege punitive damages in a motor vehicle accident action, a plaintiff needs to "establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he wilfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences."  (Taylor, 24 Cal.3d at 896.)  Moreover, conclusory allegations are not sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.  (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.)

In Brooks v. E.J. Willig Truck Transp. Co. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 669, 679 the court found that a hit and run cannot give rise to damages unless the fact of the hit and run caused additional damages above and beyond the accident itself.  Brooks did not consider the issue of whether punitive damages can be imposed based on a hit and run.  It did, however, hold that such act only constitutes a tort if the act itself causes the plaintiff additional damages above and beyond the damages caused by the accident that precedes the hit and run.  For example, if a plaintiff is struck and is seriously bleeding following the accident, the fact that the defendant hits and runs could cause additional damage due to loss of blood, death, etc.  If, however, the accident causes immediate soft tissue damage, no amount of aid would reduce or minimize the future damages, and the act of hitting and running would not give rise to additional damages.  If the act of hitting and running, in and of itself, does not give rise to a tort, then it logically follows that the act cannot give rise to a claim for punitive damages.  (Id.) 

Here, the complaint alleges in relevant part,

Defendant Steven Hernandez engaged in criminal activity after proximately causing the accident herein complained of, Defendant Hernandez fled the scene of the accident, wherein Plaintiff was seriously injured. Said fleeing complicated a proper investigation by law enforcement of this dangerous freeway accident, but moreso [sic] violated California Vehicle Code 20001(a), which states as follows: "(a) The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to a person, other than himself or herself, or in the death of a person shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident and shall fulfill the requirements of Sections 20003 and 20004." Plaintiff alleges she was injured as a result of this accident and suffered a fractured finger.

Defendants felonious conduct amounts to Malice and Oppression toward the Plaintiff. Exemplary damages are meant for deterrence and retribution to discourage tortfeasors from committing malicious and oppressive acts.

Criminal conduct, whether criminally charged or not has been sufficient to establish an appropriate award of exemplary or punitive damages pursuant to the California Supreme Court holding in Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890 and its progeny.

In addition to the felony fleeing of the accident scene as herein described, Defendant abandoned his own mother on the side of the freeway while he fled the accident scene which further establishes his callous disregard for the safety of others.

(Compl. at p. 6.)

            The complaint thus merely alleges that Defendant engaged in criminal behavior by fleeing the scene of the accident.  The complaint does not allege that Plaintiff suffered any additional damages because of Defendant’s alleged fleeing.  (Brooks, 40 Cal.2d at 679.)  In opposition, Plaintiff contends that punitive damages are proper because of Defendant’s criminal conduct and cites to Corenbaum v. Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308, in arguing that punitive damages are available to Plaintiff for Defendant’s fleeing.  However, the Corenbaum Court noted that that the damages recoverable in a civil action for violation of the statute defining the offense of fleeing the scene of an accident “are limited to those caused by fleeing rather than damages caused by the accident itself.”  (215 Cal.App.4th at 1340.)  As stated above, the complaint does not contain any allegations stating that Defendant’s fleeing caused Plaintiff any damages.  Plaintiff alleges only that she was injured as a result of the accident. 

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to strike is granted.  Plaintiff requests leave to amend to allege additional facts curing the defects in the complaint. 

Defendant’s motion to strike, therefore, is granted with twenty (20) days leave to amend.

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 12^th day of April 2023