On February 7, 1998, while under the influence of alcohol, Jeffery M. Langlois fled the scene of a collision where he sideswiped the vehicle which Shawn T. Wolford was driving, injuring him. At trial, the court permitted evidence that Langlois had been drinking immediately after the collision, was in an intoxicated state immediately after the collision at another location, and had a long history of drinking, DUI, and other moving traffic violations. Plaintiff had medical specials of $643, and the jury returned a general verdict of $3,500 plus $300,000 in punitive damages. Langlois contends that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict on the punitive damages and in allowing the admission of evidence of his prior drinking, prior traffic offenses, and evidence that he had consumed alcohol after the collision and was intoxicated. The evidence was relevant and material to the aggravating facts and circumstances on the issue of punitive damages and the amount of such damages as well as for *210 liability and impeachment because Langlois contested that he was driving while intoxicated; there being evidence on the issue of punitive damages, the denial of the directed verdict was proper. We affirm.
1. Langlois asserts that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages. We do not agree.
The tortfeasor must have engaged in some form of culpable conduct to support an award of punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence. OCGA § 51-12-5.1 (b);
Howard v. Alamo Corp.,
Leaving the scene of an accident was criminalized under OCGA §§ 40-6-270 (a) and (c) and 40-6-271, as hit and run, because the public policy of this state mandates that a party to an accident must stop and render aid to those involved in the collision, no matter who caused the collision, and not leave them in a possibly disabled state without aid.
Ga. Power Co. v. Shipp,
The defendant left the scene of the collision without even speaking to the plaintiff, which gave rise to the reasonable inference that flight was from a sense of guilt.
Parker v. State,
The jury was authorized to consider that the defendant’s perception, attention, reaction time, and motor skills had been affected by alcohol so that the defendant sideswiped plaintiff’s vehicle and that defendant left the scene of the collision to avoid detection of his drinking while driving as causing the collision. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find a causal connection between plaintiff’s injuries and defendant’s drinking and hit and run conduct. See
Beal v. Braunecker,
*212
It was proper for the trial court to deny the motion for directed verdict where there was evidence to support a jury award of punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence.
Ga. Kraft Co. v. Faust,
2. The defendant contends that the trial court erroneously denied his motion in limine to exclude evidence of his history of alcohol consumption and of his driving record, including DUI. We do not agree.
This case presents an unusual combination of issues. Defendant, at the time that he left the scene of the collision without communicating with the plaintiff, was under threat of discharge from the Army if found drinking again, because he had been found drunk on duty one morning after release from jail for a charge of DUI and had been caught drinking in the barracks on another occasion. Thus, he had not only an interest to avoid both civil and criminal liability, but also to protect his military status by concealing his drinking and driving. Therefore, he left the scene of the collision to avoid detection of his drinking and, at trial, denied drinking and committed spoliation of evidence of his drinking and driving at the time of the collision and then denied drinking and intentionally leaving the scene of the collision so that the rebuttable presumption was of no value. See generally as to spoliation of evidence OCGA § 24-4-22;
Jones v. Krystal Co.,
(a) On February 7, 1998, between 9:45 and 10:00 p.m., Langlois was seen by security guard Willard Bohannon, Jr. at the Summer Wind Condos driving with an open container of beer and with a male companion, Donald Stump. Bohannon talked to the defendant twice *213 shortly after the defendant arrived and got out of his car. Bohannon found the defendant to be in a very intoxicated state: (1) red faced; (2) speech slurred; (3) unsteady on his feet, needing support, and staggering; (4) an odor of alcohol on his breath; and (5) driving too fast for conditions in the parking lot. The defendant, when told by Bohannon that his car was recently damaged, refused to allow the police to be called. Officer Carrero reported the collision as occurring at approximately 10:00 p.m., which placed the collision immediately before the defendant was seen drunk. On cross-examination, defendant admitted that he went directly from the collision to the Summer Wind Condos, where he was seen by Bohannon; however, Langlois denied drinking on that date. Thus, evidence that he had been drinking on that day was also admissible for impeachment of his denial.
Defendant denied drinking and driving under the influence and that it had any causal connection with the collision on February 7, 1998. Therefore, drinking and driving was an integral issue of liability, along with the issues of driving on the right side of the road, maintaining control, and keeping a proper lookout. Thus, whether or not the defendant was drinking was material to the issue of liability, as well as punitive damages. Because punitive damages were sought, prior similar acts of driving under the influence were relevant and material for punitive damages.
Thompson v. Moore,
supra at 236. In this case, the trial court allowed evidence of the prior drinking to come into evidence to prove the defendant was drinking and driving from evidence of prior similar conduct, because the defendant vigorously denied drinking, had left the scene of the accident to prevent direct evidence on that issue, and had intentionally acted in a fashion to eliminate the possibility of direct proof of his drinking and driving.
Webster v. Boyett,
(b) The issue of driving under the influence was denied by the defendant so that the evidence, even if doubtful, was relevant and material to the issues of liability, punitive damages, credibility, and impeachment. See
Lovejoy v. Tidwell,
supra at 751;
Menendez v. Jewett,
supra at 566-567;
Steiner v. Melvin,
supra at 98. Prior similar acts may be admitted for impeachment purposes as well as for punitive damages.
U. S. Fidelity &c. Co. v. Paul Assoc.,
*214
(c) Further, defendant had been caught drinking in the barracks by the military and was under threat of discharge for further drinking anywhere. The defendant had a prior history of alcohol abuse, both as a civilian and as a soldier. He would be discharged from the Army if found to have been drinking and driving. Despite his attempts to conceal his driving and drinking, the Army discharged him for such conduct. Thus, he had a substantial interest in denying his drinking and concealing such drinking greater than avoiding the criminal consequences. Evidence tending to show the interest of a party in the outcome has direct relevance and materiality to his credibility as a witness. See OCGA § 24-9-80;
Bd. of Trustees &c. v. Englade,
(d) Prior similar acts of drunk driving and intoxication were relevant and material as evidence of aggravated conduct for punitive damages, and the trial court had the discretion to admit the prior or subsequent similar acts in the liability phase for punitive damages claim. Webster v. Boyett, supra at 194-196; Thompson v. Moore, supra at 236. The trial court several times gave cautionary instructions as to what the prior or subsequent alcohol abuse could be used to prove.
3. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in not granting a mistrial following highly prejudicial testimony. We do not agree.
(a) Stump was an eyewitness to the collision and had been drinking with the defendant both before and after the collision on that evening. However, Stump was unavailable to testify because he was absent without leave and subject to arrest. Investigator James Ashdown interviewed Stump, who told him that the defendant had been drinking prior to the collision. Defendant objected to the testimony as hearsay, which was sustained, and moved for a mistrial, which was denied. The trial court erroneously sustained the objection to such testimony as hearsay when it came within the necessity exception; therefore, such testimony was admissible and not the basis for a mistrial. OCGA § 24-3-1 (b);
Luallen v. State,
Being AWOL made the witness unavailable. Stump would be subject to criminal prosecution for making a false statement to the police and subject to criminal and military action for aiding and abetting the concealment of the collision. Further, the statement was made by an eyewitness a short time after the collision during the official investigation, was made against his friend, and was made when no motive existed for him to lie, and the statement was never
*215
recanted or changed and was corroborated by other evidence. Such factors would demonstrate sufficient indicia of reliability of the statement as particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. See
Chapel v. State,
(b) Defendant moved for a mistrial when the investigator indicated that a criminal investigation of the hit and run had been conducted, which the trial court denied. There was nothing prejudicial requiring a mistrial based upon the investigator conducting a criminal investigation.
(c) The defendant again moved for a mistrial when the defendant was asked had he been drinking since age 13, which motion was denied and cautionary instructions given. The cautionary instructions were adequate to cure any harm. Further, such testimony was relevant and material as part of the foundation to show defendant’s interest as held in Division 2 (c), which controls.
Judgment affirmed.