Sumpter

Sumpter v. Matteson

Good Law
158 Cal. App. 4th 928·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 27·2008 D.A.R. 370·70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 495
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 10, 2008B193915California2,924 words

Opinion

Opinion

Klein, J.

Plaintiffs and appellants Tasha Sumpter (Sumpter) and Mykayle Booker (Mykayle), by and through his guardian ad litem, Sumpter (collectively, Sumpter), appeal a judgment following a jury verdict in their favor and against defendants and respondents Richard Arden Matteson (Matteson) and Dorman DeHaas (DeHaas). Sumpter contends the jury’s award of $13,317.91 in economic damages was insufficient as a matter of law and that punitive damages must be assessed against Matteson as a matter of law.

Substantial evidence supports the jury’s determination to award Sumpter $13,317 in economic damages, rather than her claimed medical bills of $131,282; the jury properly concluded only a small portion of Sumpter’s medical bills were causally related to the instant accident.

Further, even though there was abundant evidence that Matteson acted with a conscious disregard for the safety of others, it was the jury’s prerogative, after being duly instructed, to find that Matteson acted without malice and thereby decline to award punitive damages. We reiterate the principle that a plaintiff is never entitled to punitive damages as a matter of right, not even “ ‘[ujpon the clearest proof of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.