Imposing Punitive Damage Liabiliity on the Intoxicated Driver

Akron Law Review, Dec 1985

It is important to keep in mind throughout this discussion that awareness and acknowledgement of the existence of a problem, even a very serious problem, should not make us overreact and thereby accept an unworkable solution in our zeal to do something. The imposition of punitive damages is, for the most part, just such an unworkable solution. More specifically, I will attempt to demonstrate that, with the possible exception of the case of the recidivist, non-alcoholic defendant, the imposition of punitive damages simply cannot be justified. That being the case, we must look elsewhere for a solution to an admittedly severe problem. Section II will analyze the case law pertaining to the imposition of punitive damages for unintentional torts generally and for drunk driving specifically. Section III will discuss the various rationales commonly asserted for the imposition of punitive damages. Section VI will examine some of the major objections to and problems created by the imposition of punitive damage liability against the intoxicated driver, and section V will propose a standard.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1799&context=akronlawreview

Imposing Punitive Damage Liabiliity on the Intoxicated Driver

IVol. Imposing Punitive Damage Liabiliity on the Intoxicated Driver Martin A. Kotler 0 1 0 Kotler, Martin A. (1985) "Imposing Punitive Damage Liabiliity on the Intoxicated Driver," Akron Law Review: Vol 1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol18/iss2/5 - by MARTIN A. KOTLER' I. INTRODUCTION DRIVING WHILE UNDER the influence of intoxicants is, without question, a universally condemned practice. The spokesmen for the "if you drink, don't drive" message include not only such anti-drunk driving advocates as the Mothers against Drunk Driving (MADD), Students against Drunk Driving (SADD), and the Physicians against Drunk Driving (PADD),' but also the makers of Seagrams and Bacardi liquors and the liquor industry association, Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. (DISCUS).' The reasons for the unanimity are obvious. Study after study, has established a direct correlation between driving while intoxicated and the occurrence of traffic accidents with their resultant property damage, personal injury and death to both the drinking driver and others.' In response to this problem, various solutions have been proposed and implemented. Most commonly, these solutions involve modification of law enforcement techniques in order to facilitate the apprehension of drinking drivers, increasingly severe criminal sanctions imposed against those who have been convicted, and public education programs.' In addition, however, a growing number of courts are permitting the recovery of punitive or exemplary damages in civil actions brought against the intoxicated driver. It is this expansion of civil liability with which this article deals. *LL.M., New York University School of Law, 1984: J.D., University of California, Hastings College of Law, 1975; B.A. The George Washington University, 1972. Admitted to State Bar of California, 1975; presently completing course work required to obtain J.S.D. at New York University. The author wishes to express his gratitude to Professor William E. Nelson of the New York University School of Law for having taken the time to read and offer valuable suggestions regarding the revision of earlier drafts of this article. 'For a partial listing of anti-drunk driving organizations, see N.Y. Times, Aug. 9, 1983, at A 12. See also. How to Save Lives and Reduce Injuries: A Citizen's Guide to Effectively Fight Drunk Driving. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION. APPENDIX A (Nov. 1982). 2Gay Jervey, Spirit MarketersGet Word: 'Tis the Timefor Caution. Advertising Age, December 26, 1983, at 3. 'See. e.g. Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. Final Report (Nov. 1983); Alcoholand Highway Safety: A Review of the State of Knowledge - Summary Volume. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1978). 'N.Y. Times, Feb. 6, 1984, at A 17; See also Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. Final Report (Nov. 1983) whose recommendations include: programs to increase public awareness of both the danger of injury and apprehension; increased training of police and prosecutors; use of roadblocks; elimination of plea bargaining; mandatory sentencing; and so on. It is important to keep in mind throughout this discussion that awareness and acknowledgement of the existence of a problem, even a very serious problem, should not make us overreact and thereby accept an unworkable solution in our zeal to do something. The imposition of punitive damages is, for the most part, just such an unworkable solution. More specifically, I will attempt to demonstrate that, with the possible exception of the case of the recidivist, non-alcoholic defendant, the imposition of punitive damages simply cannot be justified. That being the case, we must look elsewhere for a solution to an admittedly severe problem. Section I1 will analyze the case law pertaining to the imposition of punitive damages for unintentional torts generally and for drunk driving specifically. Section III will discuss the various rationales commonly asserted for the imposition of punitive damages. Section VI will examine some of the major objections to and problems created by the imposition of punitive damage liability against the intoxicated driver, and section V will propose a standard. 11. AN ANALYSIS OF THE CASES Anyone who attempts to read or analyze the cases involving the imposition of punitive damages in the unintentional conduct cases will immediately realize that little understanding is to be gained by focusing on the court's descriptio (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1799&context=akronlawreview

Martin A. Kotler. Imposing Punitive Damage Liabiliity on the Intoxicated Driver, Akron Law Review, 1985, Volume 18, Issue 2,