Defendant James Curtin’s Motion to Strike Punitive and Exemplary Damages from the Complaint is DENIED. Defendant has 10-days to Answer. Moving party is to give notice.

In order to justify an award of punitive damages on the basis of malice, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 896.) In Taylor v. Superior Court, the court held that one who voluntarily commences, and thereafter continues, to consume alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication, knowing from the outset that he/she must thereafter operate a motor vehicle, demonstrates a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that his conduct may be called willful or wanton. (Id. at 899-900.)

Here, Plaintiffs alleges:

“Prior to the incident, defendant James Curtin had consumed alcohol and was intoxicated. He knew that the consumption of alcohol would affect his ability to safely drive his vehicle and that by driving while intoxicated, eh would pose a serious threat of harm to other drivers. Nevertheless, he decided to drive his vehicle on the San Diego Freeway…. After he collided with plaintiff’s vehicle, he abandoned his vehicle on the freeway and fled on foot to escape, thus abandoning the victims of his wrongdoing.

Following his arrest by law enforcement authorities, defendant underwent a blood alcohol analysis, disclosing that his blood alcohol level exceeded .08%. On March 30, 2013, he was found guilty in Orange County Superior Court of driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of .08%, … and hit and run with property damage….”

(Complaint, at paragraph 6.)

Those allegations are sufficient to establish that defendant acted with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Taylor v. Superior Court, supra, 24 Cal.3d at 897.