Muniz

DISCUSSION

First, we reject defendant’s argument that writ review is unnecessary and that

plaintiff should be relegated to his remedy on appeal. Where a pleading order removes a

substantial portion of the plaintiff’s case, we have discretion to review it by extraordinary

writ. (Campbell v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314-1315.)

Punitive damages may be recovered in a personal injury action if the plaintiff

pleads and proves that the defendant acted with the state of mind described as “conscious

disregard” of the potential dangers to others. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(2); Pfeifer v.

John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1299.) Although defendant may be

correct in arguing that an unadorned allegation that a defendant so acted would be

insufficient, here plaintiff alleges that defendant consumed intoxicants to the point of

legal impairment, knowing that she would subsequently operate a vehicle on public

highways. This allegation, if proven, meets the standards for the recovery of punitive

damages as set out above and in Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890. The

pleading of ultimate fact is sufficient; additional evidentiary allegations…