Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 3. Actions » Article 3. Injury to Person or Property
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-44.5 (2026)

Punitive damages for persons injured by intoxicated drivers

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In any action for personal injury or death arising from the operation of a motor vehicle, engine or train, the finder of fact may, in its discretion, award punitive damages to the plaintiff if the evidence proves that the defendant acted with malice toward the plaintiff or the defendant's conduct was so willful or wanton as to show a conscious disregard for the rights of others.

A defendant's conduct shall be deemed sufficiently willful or wanton as to show a conscious disregard for the rights of others when the evidence proves that (i) when the incident causing the injury or death occurred, the defendant had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.15 grams or more per 210 liters of breath; (ii) at the time the defendant began drinking alcohol, or during the time he was drinking alcohol, he knew or should have known that his ability to operate a motor vehicle, engine or train would be impaired, or when he was operating a motor vehicle he knew or should have known that his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired; and (iii) the defendant's intoxication was a proximate cause of the injury to or death of the plaintiff. For the purposes of clause (i), it shall be rebuttably presumed that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the incident causing injury or death was at least as high as the test result as shown in a certificate issued pursuant to § 18.2-268.9, in a certificate of analysis for a blood test administered pursuant to § 18.2-268.7, provided that the test was administered in accordance with the provisions of §§ 18.2-268.1 through 18.2-268.12, or in a certificate of analysis for a test performed by the Department of Forensic Science on whole blood drawn pursuant to a search warrant, provided that the test was administered in accordance with the provisions of §§ 18.2-268.5, 18.2-268.6, and 18.2-268.7. In addition to any other forms of proof, a party may submit a copy of a certificate issued pursuant to § 18.2-268.9, a certificate of analysis for a blood test administered pursuant to § 18.2-268.7, or a certificate of analysis for a test performed by the Department of Forensic Science on whole blood drawn pursuant to a search warrant, which shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein and compliance with the applicable provisions of §§ 18.2-268.1 through 18.2-268.12. For the purposes of clause (ii), it shall be rebuttably presumed that the defendant who has consumed alcohol knew or should have known that his ability to operate a motor vehicle, engine, or train was or would be impaired by such consumption of alcohol.

However, when a defendant has unreasonably refused to submit to a test of his blood alcohol content as required by § 18.2-268.2, a defendant's conduct shall be deemed sufficiently willful or wanton as to show a conscious disregard for the rights of others when the evidence proves that (a) when the incident causing the injury or death occurred the defendant was intoxicated, which may be established by evidence concerning the conduct or condition of the defendant; (b) at the time the defendant began drinking alcohol, during the time he was drinking alcohol, or when he was operating a motor vehicle, he knew or should have known that his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired; and (c) the defendant's intoxication was a proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff or death of the plaintiff's decedent. In addition to any other forms of proof, a party may submit a certified copy of a court's determination of unreasonable refusal pursuant to § 18.2-268.3, which shall be prima facie evidence that the defendant unreasonably refused to submit to the test. For the purposes of clause (b), it shall be rebuttably presumed that the defendant who has consumed alcohol knew or should have known that his ability to operate a motor vehicle, engine, or train was or would be impaired by such consumption of alcohol.

Evidence of similar conduct by the same defendant subsequent to the date of the personal injury or death arising from the operation of a motor vehicle, engine, or train shall be admissible at trial for consideration by the jury or other finder of fact for the limited purpose of determining what amount of punitive damages may be appropriate to deter the defendant and others from similar future action.

1994, c. 570; 1998, c. 722; 1999, c. 324; 2002, c. 879; 2013, c. 636; 2015, c. 710; 2016, cc. 510, 624; 2017, cc. 623, 671.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1994–2019 · leading case: Woods v. Mendez, 574 S.E.2d 263 (Va. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Woods v. Mendez, 574 S.E.2d 263 (Va. 2003). · cites it 56× “In this appeal, we consider whether the trial court erred in sustaining the defendants' demurrers on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for punitive damages either under Code § 8.01-44.5 or at common law. On June 27, 1999, about 2:30 a.”
Bazemore v. Commonwealth, 590 S.E.2d 602 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “Thus, although exemplary damages ( see Code § 8.01-44.5) are permitted in a civil case upon a showing of "willful or wanton" conduct, Isaacs, 265 Va.”
Webb v. Rivers, 507 S.E.2d 360 (Va. 1998). · cites it 8× “Code § 8.01-44.5 states in relevant part: “In any action for personal injury or death arising from the operation of a motor vehicle .”
Kimble v. Carey, 691 S.E.2d 790 (Va. 2010). · cites it 4× “Kimble maintains that willful or wanton conduct by the victim is a complete bar to the contributory negligence defense, and a per se finding of willful or wanton conduct is mandated by Carey's violation of Code § 8.01-44.5. [7] Therefore, Kimble argues that Carey's actions in…”
Allstate Ins. v. Wade, 579 S.E.2d 180 (Va. 2003). · cites it 2× “5 Code § 8.01-44.5 provides that a presumption of willful and wanton conduct attaches to a driver with a blood alcohol level 0.”
Doe v. Isaacs, 579 S.E.2d 174 (Va. 2003). · cites it 2× “See Code § 8.01-44.5 (provides for exemplary damages for injury or death caused by intoxicated driver).”
McGladrey & Pullen, L.L.P. v. Shrader, 62 Va. Cir. 401 (Rockingham Cir. Ct. 2003). · cites it 3× “3 (punitive damages allowed for stalking victims if compensatory damages are recovered); Va. Code § 8.01-44.5 (exemplary damages allowed in certain DUI cases); Va.”
Laporsek v. Burress (W.D. Va. 2019). · cites it 9× “He also alleges that Burress is subject to statutory punitive damages under Virginia Code § 8.01-44.5. In response, Burress argues that his conduct is not egregious enough to meet Virginia’s standard for willful and wanton conduct and that Laporsek failed to plead his statutory…”
Carpenter v. Hawkins, 93 Va. Cir. 420 (Augusta Cir. Ct. 2016). · cites it 6× “Cain involved the application ofVa. Code Ann. § 8.01-44.5, which authorizes an award of punitive damages if certain criteria are established.”
Cain v. Lee (Va. 2015). · cites it 10× “5, when a defendant unreasonably refuses to submit to a breath test, the finder of fact may award 5 punitive damages if the evidence demonstrates: (1) the defendant was intoxicated at the time of accident; (2) the defendant knew or should have known “his ability to operate a…”
Finney v. Hearn, 35 Va. Cir. 89 (Virginia Beach Cir. Ct. 1994). · cites it 11× “Code of Virginia § 8.01-44.5 was enacted July 1, 1994.”
Hoggard v. Reitano, 54 Va. Cir. 513 (Portsmouth Cir. Ct. 2001). · cites it 6× “15 or more per 210 liters of breath____” Virginia Code § 8.01-44.5. The defendant argues that the certificate of analysis (Exhibit A) conclusively establishes that the plaintiff may not rely upon this statute to establish punitive damages.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-44.5(i) — 1 case
Hoggard v. Reitano, 54 Va. Cir. 513 (Portsmouth Cir. Ct. 2001). “15 or more per 210 liters of breath____” Virginia Code § 8.01-44.5. The defendant argues that the certificate of analysis (Exhibit A) conclusively establishes that the plaintiff may not rely upon this statute to establish punitive damages.”
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.