Moore v. Thompson

¶1We granted certiorari to determine whether, in a civil action for damages arising out of the use of an automobile in which the cause of the injuries is alleged to be driving while intoxicated, evidence is admissible on the issue of punitive damages that the defendant had pled guilty to driving while intoxicated twice before, and twice after, the injuries in issue. Thompson v. Moore, 174 Ga. App. 331 (329 SE2d 914) (1985). The Court of Appeals held that evidence of the guilty pleas as to incidents prior to, but not after, the injuries in issue was admissible on the question of punitive damages. Thompson, supra.

¶2Thompson suffered personal injuries when Moore’s car crossed the road and struck Thompson while he was jogging. Moore pled *237guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol. Thompson then sued Moore. At trial the court admitted evidence of the defendant’s four guilty pleas but later declared a mistrial because of the prejudicial impact of such evidence. On interlocutory appeal the Court of Appeals found that the trial court had erred in granting the mistrial insofar as the first two of the defendant’s guilty pleas were concerned. Two judges of that court would allow evidence as to the subsequent guilty pleas as well. Thompson, supra.

¶3At the outset it should be noted that we are dealing here with the admission of evidence on the issue of punitive damages. Hence, nothing said herein relates to the admissibility of evidence on the issue of liability, to impeach a witness, or as to any other matter.1

¶4Our Code, OCGA § 51-12-5, provides: “In a tort action in which there are aggravating circumstances, in either the act or the intention, the jury may give additional damages to deter the wrongdoer from repeating the trespass or as compensation for the wounded feelings of the plaintiff.”

¶5In Southern R. Co. v. O’Bryan, 119 Ga. 147 (1) (45 SE 1000) (1903), the court held: “To authorize the imposition of punitive or exemplary damages there must be evidence of wilful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, or oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences.”

¶6Evidence that the defendant’s driving under the influence of alcohol caused the plaintiffs injuries is evidence of wilful misconduct, wantonness, and that entire want of care which raises the presumption of conscious indifference to the consequences. Therefore, driving under the influence of alcohol so as to cause personal injuries to another is an aggravating circumstance in the act which would authorize the jury to give punitive damages to deter the wrongdoer from repeating the act.

¶7The extent of the defendant’s wilful misconduct, wantonness and entire want of care in driving under the influence cannot be gauged solely by focusing on the incident in issue. For the reasons stated by the Court of Appeals we find that evidence of pleas of guilty to prior offenses of driving under the influence of alcohol is admissible, Thompson v. Moore, supra. For the reasons stated by Judge Beasley in her concurring opinion, we find that evidence of pleas of guilty to subsequent DUI offenses is also admissible. Thompson, supra.

¶8We therefore hold that evidence of the defendant’s guilty pleas to driving under the influence before and after the incident in issue is *238admissible on the question of punitive damages. Like the Court of Appeals, we find that the facts that such prior and subsequent incidents did not result in personal injuries is immaterial to the issue of defendant’s wilful misconduct, etc., except to the extent the defendant may wish to rely thereon in mitigation of punitive damages.

¶9However, because of the likelihood that the defendant’s guilty pleas as to prior and subsequent offenses may prejudice him as to the issue of liability in the case at hand, we hold that the trial judge should exercise his discretion under OCGA § 9-11-42 (b)2 to try the issue of punitive damages separately in a bifurcated procedure or in a separate trial. Cline v. Kehs, 146 Ga. App. 350 (246 SE2d 329) (1978); Sollek v. Laseter, 124 Ga. App. 131 (183 SE2d 86) (1971.)

¶10Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.