In automobile collision cases decided under Georgia law, "punitive damages are not recoverable where the driver at fault simply violated a rule of the road." Carter v. Spells, 229 Ga. App. 441, 442, 494 S.E.2d 279 (1997); ("A traffic violation, without more, simply does not rise to the level of willfully illegal behavior contemplated by the Georgia Code.").
The term "punitive damages" refers to damages awarded because of aggravating circumstances used to punish or deter a defendant. Punitive damages may be awarded only in such tort actions in which it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's actions showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences. Punitive damages shall be awarded not as compensation to a plaintiff but solely to punish, penalize, or deter a defendant. O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1. Punitive damages in personal injury cases are treated differently than other damages that may be claimed in a typical injury claim.
The Georgia Court of Appeals confronted the issue of punitive damages in Fowler v. Smith, 237 Ga. App. 841, 516 S.E.2d 845 (1999). In Fowler, the Georgia Court of Appeals found that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a truck driver's conduct exhibited that level of indifference required to support an award of punitive damages. In Fowler, the truck driver stopped his tractor-trailer behind a disabled vehicle in the center lane of Interstate 285. The driver did not place any warning devices in the highway, and although it was getting dark, he never activated the trailer's lights. Id. Thirty-five minutes later, the plaintiffs' decedent drove his car into the back of the trailer. Id. The plaintiffs sued the truck driver, his employer, and his employer's insurer, and the defendants moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Id. The trial court denied the defendants' motion and the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court looked to the lack of lights or warning devices. The Appellate Court also pointed to evidence that the truck driver had the opportunity to move the vehicle out of the center of the highway in the thirty-five minutes prior to the collision, but failed to do so. Based on this evidence, the Georgia Court of Appeals concluded that a jury would be entitled to find that the truck driver's conduct "demonstrated that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to the consequences." Id.
In Highsmith v. Tractor Trailer Serv., the defendants stopped their pickup truck on the side of the highway when their truck started overheating. The defendants exited their vehicle, walked to the front of the truck, and opened the hood to determine the cause of the problem. Five minutes later, while the defendants were still underneath the hood of the truck, the plaintiffs' vehicle struck the left rear corner of a trailer attached to the defendant's truck, which remained partially in the roadway. The court concluded that the circumstance in Highsmith were far less egregious than those in Fowler, therefore no punitive damages were awarded.
For an award of punitive damages, defendant's actions must show willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or a conscious disregard as to the consequences.