Trudeau v. Cooke
| Decision Date | 18 December 2003 |
| Docket Number | 94191. |
| Parties | AARON TRUDEAU, Appellant, v. JON A. COOKE et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dawson, J.), entered February 24, 2003 in Clinton County, which, inter alia, granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's punitive damage claim.
After spending an evening patronizing a tavern in the Village of Ticonderoga, Essex County, plaintiff, James Fuller and defendant Jon A. Cooke left the establishment in a motor vehicle operated by Cooke and owned by Cooke's employer, defendant Steam Systems, Inc. At approximately 1:40 A.M., Cooke lost control of the vehicle on a curve, resulting in the vehicle leaving the road and overturning. He subsequently pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking compensatory damages for injuries allegedly sustained in the accident and also seeking punitive damages. Following disclosure, defendants moved to dismiss the demand for punitive damages and plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. Supreme Court dismissed the demand for punitive damages and denied plaintiff's cross motion. Plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff has limited his argument on appeal to the issue of whether he presented adequate proof to raise a factual question regarding his demand for punitive damages. Punitive damages are "intended as punishment for gross misbehavior for the good of the public" (Home Ins. Co. v American Home Prods. Corp., 75 NY2d 196, 203 [1990]). While intentional conduct is not a mandatory showing for punitive damages, the conduct generally must be "so reckless or wantonly negligent as to be the equivalent of a conscious disregard of the rights of others" (Rinaldo v Mashayekhi, 185 AD2d 435, 436 [1992]; see Evans v Stranger, 307 AD2d 439, 440-441 [2003]). Well-settled precedent instructs that intoxication alone does not open the door for punitive damages and that each situation must be considered on a case-by-case basis (see Sweeney v McCormick, 159 AD2d 832, 834 [1990]; see also Deon v Fortuna, 283 AD2d 388 [2001]; Taylor v Dyer, 190 AD2d 902, 903-904 [1993]; Rinaldo v Mashayekhi, supra at 436).
Here, plaintiff had been in the same drinking establishment with Cooke prior to the accident. He acknowledged seeing Cooke imbibing alcoholic beverages and he testified that he observed nothing about Cooke that caused him to believe Cooke was intoxicated. Plaintiff voluntarily embarked on a ride with Cooke. These facts significantly distinguish the current case from situations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fraternity Fund v. Beacon Hill Asset
...is satisfied, cases involving gross or wanton negligence or willful, malicious conduct."). 164. See Trudeau v. Cooke, 2 A.D.3d 1133, 1134, 769 N.Y.S.2d 322, 323 (3d Dep't 2003) ("While intentional conduct is not a mandatory showing for punitive damages, the conduct generally must be so reck......
-
Clinton v. Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.
...Br. 22.8 "Punitive damages are `intended as punishment for gross misbehavior for the good of the public.'" Trudeau v. Cooke, 2 A.D.3d 1133, 1134, 769 N.Y.S.2d 322 (3d Dep't 2003) (quoting Home Ins. Co. v. American Home Prods. Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 196, 203, 551 N.Y.S.2d 481, 550 N.E.2d 930 (1990......
-
Fraternity Fund v. Beacon Hill Asset Management
...and citing Campagnola v. Mulholland, 76 N.Y.2d 38, 48, 556 N.Y.S.2d 239, 245, 555 N.E.2d 611 (1990)). 130. Trudeau v. Cooke, 2 A.D.3d 1133, 1134, 769 N.Y.S.2d 322, 323 (3d Dep't 2003). 131. 67 N.Y.2d 369, 502 N.Y.S.2d. 965, 494 N.E.2d 70 132. Id. at 378, 502 N.Y.S.2d at 969-70, 494 N.E.2d 7......
-
Chiara v. Dernago
...v. Duffy, 95 A.D.3d 864, 866–867, 944 N.Y.S.2d 175 ; D'Angelo v. Litterer, 77 A.D.3d 1373, 1374, 907 N.Y.S.2d 917 ; Trudeau v. Cooke, 2 A.D.3d 1133, 1134, 769 N.Y.S.2d 322 ; Deon v. Fortuna, 283 A.D.2d 388, 389, 724 N.Y.S.2d 450 ). However, driving while intoxicated may support an award for......
-
Changing Tides: the Introduction of Punitive Damages Into the French Legal System
...E.g., Hammerly Oaks, Inc. v. Edwards, 958 S.W.2d 387 (Tex. 1997); Condict v. Hewitt, 369 P.2d 278, 280 (Wyo. 1962); Trudeau v. Cooke, 769 N.Y.S.2d 322, 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). 148. Anthony J. Sebok, Private Law, Punishment and Disgorgement: What Did Punitive Damages Do? Why Misunderstand......