This is a damage action for injuries sustained by plaintiff when defendant’s car crashed through a bedroom wall of plaintiff’s home and knocked her out оf bed and across the room. The jury found for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
On appeal defendant urges that the court erred in denying his mоtion for a second physical examination of plaintiff, in submitting to the jury the issue of punitive damages and in giving an abstract instruction. . , ...
On a Saturday evening in October, 1965, defendant, a young man who lived with his parents in Corvallis, *238 went to a hotel lonnge where he stayed until about 11:30 p.m., during which period he drank about sеven whisky and coke highballs. He then went to a nightclub in Corvallis where he had three more highballs. Defendant testified that he did not remember leaving the nightclub and did not remember crashing into plaintiff’s home. In his amended answer, however, defendant admits that at about one o’clock a.m. on Sunday morning, August twenty-fоurth, his car went through the wall of plaintiff’s home and knocked her from her bed.
Plaintiff complained principally of a hyperextension injury to her neck with some nerve root injury on the left side due to a slipped disc. On August 22, 1967, plaintiff was examined by Dr. Stainsby, a neurosurgeon selected by defendant, who mаde a detailed report of his examination.
On October 6, 1967, plaintiff was involved in another accident when her car, while stopped at an intersection, was struck from behind by another car. Plaintiff was wearing a cervical collar at the time of this accident. Plaintiff complained of pain in her neck, was taken to the hospital, placed in traction and remained in the hospital about a week.
On October 24 defеndant, having learned of the second accident, moved the court to require plaintiff to submit to an additional physical examination by Dr. Stainsby. Dеfendant’s motion was denied on December 4, 1967. When the ease came on for trial on January 17, 1968, defendant renewed his motion. The court again denied the motion but gave defendant leave to renew it during the course of the trial.
We think the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to require plaintiff to submit to a second
*239
physical examination. Plaintiff made no claim that the injuries sustained by her in the first accident were aggravated by the second accident or that her recovery from the first accident’s injuries was in any way impaired. Both physicians who testified for plaintiff testified to thе same effect. Defendant did not renew his motion after plaintiff and her doctors testified and he did not call Dr. Stainsby as a witness. Defendant did not point out to the trial court and has not pointed out to this court how he was prejudiced in any way by the denial of his motion. The trial courts have inherеnt power to require physical examinations whenever it appears that “the ends of justice” would be promoted thereby.
Carnine v. Tibbetts,
The verdict in this case included a separate award of $500 as punitive damages. Defendant assigns as error the denial of his motion to withdraw the claim for punitive damages from the jury because the evidenсe allegedly did not justify the submission of that issue.
This court has long approved the award of punitive damages in appropriate cases tо punish the defendant and to thus deter him and all others from like conduct.
Van Lom v. Schneiderman,
“* * * It is only in those instances where the violation of soсietal interests is sufficiently great and of a kind that sanctions would tend to prevent, that the use of punitive damages- is proper.
See, also,
Sumrell v. Household Finance Corp.,
Although this court has used a variety of terms to describe conduct justifying punitive damages it has consistently held that such damages are proper to deter wanton misconduct. In Day v. Holland, supra, the court said:
“* * * [W]here a tort is committed with a bad motive, or so recklessly as to imply a disregard of social obligations, and generally when the defendant appears to have done the act wantonly, maliciously, or wickedly, the jury may, in their discretion, give exemplary damages. * * *”15 Or at 469 .
The abоve statement has been quoted in several later cases and in many other cases conduct warranting punitive damages has been desсribed as wanton. See
Hall v. Work,
The rule followed by this court that wanton misconduct will justify an award of punitive damages is supported by other authorities: McCormick on Damages 280, § 79; Prosser on Torts (3d ed) 9, § 2; 4 Restatement, Torts, §908; 17-18 Huddy, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law (9th ed), § 271; 22 Am Jur 2d, Damages § 244.
Yfantonuess has been generally еquated with recklessness, as defined in 2 Be statement, Torts 1293, § 500, as follows:
“The actor’s conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety of another if he intеntionally does an act or fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reаsonable man to realize that the actor’s conduct not only creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the other but also involvеs a high degree of probability that substantial harm will result to him.”
Prosser treats wantonness and recklessness as synonymous in the following statement:
“* * * ‘Wantonness,’ оr ‘recklessness,’ * * * means that the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character, in disregard of a risk known to him or so obvious that he must be taken to have been aware of it, and so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow. * * *» Prosser on Torts (2d ed) 151.
In our cases wantonness and recklessness have frequently been coupled together or been used interchangeably. See, e.g., Douglas v. Humble Oil Co., *242 supra; Fisher v. Carlin, supra, Perry v. Thomas, supra.
There is ample evidence in this case to support a finding that defendant’s conduct was wanton. He admitted that he had drunk ten whisky highballs. He testified that his last recollectiоn was of sitting at the bar talking to the owner of the nightclub and that he did not remember leaving the bar. Defendant offered no explanation for his loss оf memory and the jury could infer that it was due to his consumption of alcohol.
We think the conduct of one who drives a car after voluntarily drinking to еxcess is best classified as wanton or reckless. Similar conduct was held to support a finding of wantonness in
Falls v. Mortensen,
Other eases holding that punitive damages are recoverable for harm caused by driving while intoxicated include
Miller v. Blanton,
Driving a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor is a crime punishable by imprisonment in jail “for not more than one year, or by fine of not more than $1,000, or both.” ORS 483.992 (2). We hold that an award of punitive damagеs is proper as' a deterrent to the conduct proscribed by the above *243 statute. The trial court properly submitted the issue of punitive dаmages to the jury.
Plaintiff also complains of the giving of an instruction that was in part abstract when the court mentioned the concurrent negligenсe of two or more people. Although concurrent negligence was not involved in this case the error was inconsequential and harmless.
There is no merit in the other assignments of error.
The judgment is affirmed.