(a)In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
(b)An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had
advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.
(c)As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1)“Malice” means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.
(2)“Oppression” means
despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.
(3)“Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.
(d)Damages may be recovered pursuant to this section in an action pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 377.10) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure based upon a death which resulted from a homicide for which the defendant has been convicted of a felony, whether or not the decedent died instantly or survived the fatal injury for some period of time. The procedures for joinder and consolidation contained in Section 377.62 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to prevent multiple
recoveries of punitive or exemplary damages based upon the same wrongful act.
(e)The amendments to this section made by Chapter 1498 of the Statutes of 1987 apply to all actions in which the initial trial has not commenced prior to January 1, 1988.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
1,231
cases (
377 in the last 5 years), 1946–2026 · leading case:
Roby v. McKesson Corp., 219 P.3d 749 (Cal. 2009).
Roby v. McKesson Corp., 219 P.3d 749 (Cal. 2009).
· cites it 10× “" (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) "Malice" is defined as intentional injury or "despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.”
In Re: George Jercich, Debtor. James A. Petralia v. George Jercich, 238 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 6× “; that “Jercich had the clear ability to make these payments to Petralia, but chose not to”; that instead of paying Petralia and other employees the money owed to them, “Jercich utilized the funds from his company to pay for a wide variety of personal investments, including a…”
Rees v. PNC Bank, N.A., 308 F.R.D. 266 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
· cites it 10× “The FAC contains several new factual allegations, including that Defendants’ conduct was malicious, fraudulent and/or oppressive, and calculated to injure Plaintiffs, and that Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294. Id. ¶¶44, 49,…”
Egan v. Mut. of Omaha Ins., 598 P.2d 452 (Cal. 1979).
· cites it 6× “II Civil Code section 3294 provides: "In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the…”
Plyam v. Precision Dev., LLC (In Re Plyam), 530 B.R. 456 (9th Cir. BAP 2015).
· cites it 6× “We determine that the bankruptcy court erred as the state court judgment did not include a finding equivalent to willfulness as required for § 523(a)(6) nondischargeability, notwithstanding its award of punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294. The state court…”
Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 510 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 9× “In so doing, we find, in part, that subdivision (a) of California's punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294, states the general rule that punitive damages may be awarded only upon a showing that the defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.”
Taylor v. Superior Court, 598 P.2d 854 (Cal. 1979).
· cites it 6× “We consider whether punitive damages (Civ. Code, § 3294) are recoverable in a personal injury action brought against an intoxicated driver.”
Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court, 882 P.2d 894 (Cal. 1994).
· cites it 5× “Since 1872, they have been statutorily authorized in actions “not arising from contract” where the tortious event involves an additional egregious component—“oppression, fraud, or malice.”
Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, 223 Cal. App. 4th 1105 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “Punitive Damages Civil Code section 3294 authorizes an award of punitive damages where the defendant has acted with “oppression, fraud, or malice.”
Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Prods. Sales & Mktg., Inc., 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 5× “Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (a), authorizes recovery of punitive damages in a tort action on the basis of findings “that the defendant has been *891 guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice .”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3294(3) — 1 case
— Cal. Civil Code § 3294(C)(3) — 1 case
— Cal. Civil Code § 3294(a) — 145 cases
Rees v. PNC Bank, N.A., 308 F.R.D. 266 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
“The FAC contains several new factual allegations, including that Defendants’ conduct was malicious, fraudulent and/or oppressive, and calculated to injure Plaintiffs, and that Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294. Id. ¶¶44, 49,…”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3294(b) — 45 cases
Rees v. PNC Bank, N.A., 308 F.R.D. 266 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
“The FAC contains several new factual allegations, including that Defendants’ conduct was malicious, fraudulent and/or oppressive, and calculated to injure Plaintiffs, and that Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294. Id. ¶¶44, 49,…”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3294(c) — 8 cases
— Cal. Civil Code § 3294(c)(1) — 27 cases
Plyam v. Precision Dev., LLC (In Re Plyam), 530 B.R. 456 (9th Cir. BAP 2015).
“We determine that the bankruptcy court erred as the state court judgment did not include a finding equivalent to willfulness as required for § 523(a)(6) nondischargeability, notwithstanding its award of punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294. The state court…”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3294(c)(2) — 10 cases
In Re: George Jercich, Debtor. James A. Petralia v. George Jercich, 238 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2001).
“; that “Jercich had the clear ability to make these payments to Petralia, but chose not to”; that instead of paying Petralia and other employees the money owed to them, “Jercich utilized the funds from his company to pay for a wide variety of personal investments, including a…”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3294(c)(3) — 5 cases
— Cal. Civil Code § 3294(c)(l) — 1 case
Plyam v. Precision Dev., LLC (In Re Plyam), 530 B.R. 456 (9th Cir. BAP 2015).
“We determine that the bankruptcy court erred as the state court judgment did not include a finding equivalent to willfulness as required for § 523(a)(6) nondischargeability, notwithstanding its award of punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294. The state court…”
— Cal. Civil Code § 3294(d) — 2 cases
— Cal. Civil Code § 3294(e)(3) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.