Case Summaries
| Jurisdiction | Utah,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 1 No. 3 Pg. 23 |
| Pages | 23 |
| Publication year | 1988 |
William D. Holyoak and Clark R. Nielsen, J.
STANDARD FOR IMPOSING AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES; NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
The parents of a child killed when a truck jumped a curb and struck the child and his father, who were standing on a Salt Lake City sidewalk, brought an action for wrongful death, physical injuries to the father and emotional distress to both parents. The driver of the truck was delivering newspapers at the time of the accident and was under the influence of alcohol. Plaintiffs proffered considerable evidence of aggravating circumstances concerning the accident, the driver's employment and conditions in the driver's workplace.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the driver and his employer on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages, but denied summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs' claim for emotional distress.
The trial court held that "evil intent, " "actual malice, " or "malice in fact" was required for an award of punitive damages. The Supreme Court, in its main opinion written by Justice Durham, held that this ruling misconstrued its case law, wrongfully relying on a standard applied by the Court in a false imprisonment case. The Court stated:
The standard for punitive damages in non-false imprisonment cases is thus clear: they may be imposed for conduct that is willful and malicious and that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference and disregard toward the rights of others.
The Court rejected defendants' arguments that punitive damages should not be awarded in drunk driving cases or where the defendant has already been punished criminally for his actions. The Court concluded that the facts alleged by plaintiffs "would certainly be sufficient to support a finding of knowing and reckless disregard for the safety of others" and consequently concluded that the trial court had incorrectly awarded summary judgment to defendant on the issue.
The Court then considered an issue of first impression in Utah: the vicarious liability of an employer for punitive damages. I After noting four different rules applied by different courts, the Court adopted the socalled "complicity rule" of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. That rule "limits vicarious punitive damages to those situations where wrongful acts were committed or specifically authorized by a managerial agent or were committed by an unfit employee who was recklessly employed or retained." Again, the Court concluded that there had been sufficient allegations by plaintiffs to meet this...
To continue reading
Request your trial