Johnson v. Rogers - 763 P.2d 771 (Utah Sup.Ct. 1988)

Rule:

Drunk driving is not excluded from the categories of outrageous conduct, either willful or knowingly reckless, which are eligible for the imposition of punitive damages. It is not a "per se" rule. The mere allegation or fact of having caused an accident or injury after drinking and driving will not support an award of punitive damages. The standard is fact-specific and requires proof of conduct which is knowingly reckless and exhibits a high degree of disregard for the safety of others.

Facts:

Plaintiffs, father and mother of deceased child, filed a complaint for the wrongful death of their son that occurred when he and plaintiff father were struck by defendant employee's truck. Claims against defendant employer were based on vicarious liability. The trial court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages, but denied defendants' motions as to plaintiff father's emotional distress claim. The parties appealed.

Issue:

1. Did the trial court err in granting defendants' motions for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages? 
2. Did the trial court err in denying defendants’ motions as to plaintiff father's emotional distress claim?

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the dismissal of the punitive damages claim against defendant employee because such damages were permissible in cases involving drunk driving if extreme, outrageous, or shocking behavior occurred. The dismissal of the punitive damages claim against defendant employer was reversed because there was a material issue of fact as to whether wrongful acts were committed or specifically authorized by defendant employer or were committed by defendant employee who was recklessly employed. The court affirmed the decision denying the motion as to the emotional distress claim because plaintiff father, who was a parent in the "zone of danger," could recover for the trauma associated with seeing a child injured.