Sumpter v. Matteson
Filed January 10, 2008, Second District, Division Three,
Cite as 2008 SOS 127

Accident Victim Awarded Economic Claims But Denied Punitive Damages

Richard Matteson was involved in an accident where he struck several vehicles in an intersection as he ran and ignored a red light. Later investigations revealed that Matteson was high on drugs. Despite knowing that the traffic light he was approaching was red, Matteson decided not to stop because, in his intoxicated state, he believed it would turn green before he reached the intersection.

Tasha Sumpter was one of the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident occurred, she did not immediately realize her car had been struck. After the accident, she declined medical attention and told a police officer at the scene that she was not injured.

Eleven days later, Sumpter sought medical attention for headache, shoulder and lower back pain, as well as pain in the left leg. In the following five months, she undertook a course of chiropractic treatment.

As a result, Sumpter sued Matteson and Dorman DeHaas, the owner of the car Matteson was driving. She sought recovery in the amount of $131,282 as expenses for medical treatment. The lawsuit also included punitive damages for Matteson’s conduct, and willful and conscious disregard to the rights or safety of others.

At trial, Sumpter presented evidence that Matteson knew he was intoxicated at the time he borrowed DeHaas’s vehicle, shortly before the accident.

However, during trial, important information was revealed, to mention:

• That Sumpter had suffered a slip and fall injury some ten months before the car accident, which resulted in low back pain and pain radiating into her left leg. Records also showed that treatment continued until about one month before the car accident, at which time, Sumpter continued to experience lower back pain.


• A defense expert also testified that Sumpter suffered from degenerative disc disease which had begun to develop long before the car accident.


• Another defense expert testified that Sumpter’s knee injury was unrelated to the car accident, and was most likely sustained at the time she fell in her back yard some eight months after the car accident wherein Sumpter was directed to wear a leg brace.

As a result, the jury awarded Sumpter only $13,317.91 in economic damages. The jury also declined to award punitive damages, finding that Matteson acted without malice.

In reviewing the decision, the Second Appellate Court affirmed the judgment based on the following grounds:

• That substantial evidence supported the jury’s determination that only a small portion of Sumpter’s medical bills were causally related to the car accident.


• That the evidence presented as to Sumpter’s other injuries was sufficient for the jury to determine that perhaps not all of her damages were causally connected to this car accident.

Further, the appeals court held that Sumpter was not entitled to punitive damages, even if the evidence showed that Matteson acted with a conscious disregard for the safety of others.

Finally, in sustaining the decision, the appeals court averred that a plaintiff has no claim to punitive damages as a matter of right, even when there is clear proof of malice in fact. According to the court, it was the jury’s prerogative, regardless of the evidence introduced at trial, to find that Matteson acted without malice and thereby declined to award punitive damages.