 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Howard v. Parker9/5/1989
!--REF-->333 S.E.2d at 760.
We note that Ivey v. Rose, 94 N.C. App. 773, 776, 381 S.E.2d 476, 478 (1989), contains language which states that:
Defendant's intentional act of driving while impaired in violation of G.S. 20-138.1 is sufficiently wanton within the meaning of Hinson, supra, and Brewer v. Harris, 279 N.C. 288, 297, 182 S.E.2d 345, 350 (1971) (quoting Foster v. Hyman, 197 N.C. 189, 191, 148 S.E. 36, 37-38 (1929)) which states " n act is wanton when it is done of wicked purpose, or when done needlessly, manifesting a reckless indifference to the rights of others. . . ." The act of driving while impaired is a wanton act. The driver's motive or intent in relation to the damages he causes as a result is wholly irrelevant.
In Ivey we note that there was a rear-end collision in which defendant's vehicle, traveling at about 45 miles per hour, rammed into plaintiff's standing vehicle, the defendant had a breathalyzer reading of .18 and had failed four sobriety performance tests, and the evidence from the investigating officer that defendant's face was flushed, her eyes were glassy and that she was not steady on her feet. In the officer's opinion defendant Rose was impaired.
Here the evidence does not support a finding of wantonness: there is no breathalyzer reading, though defendant pleaded guilty to driving while impaired and admitted having consumed three beers earlier in the day. The complaint alleging impairment is not verified; there are no affidavits or depositions of witnesses to the defendant's impairment. Though the accident report is part of the record, it is not clear what the officer's notations on the report indicate regarding drinking by defendant and impairment.
Accordingly, we believe that Ivey, supra, like King and Huff, is distinguishable on its facts and that summary judgment on the punitive damages claim was proper based on the record before us.
III
Finally, because of our disposition of the summary judgment issue, we need not reach the constitutional issue raised by the defendants.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is
Affirmed.
Disposition
Affirmed.
|