Key takeaways
- New York passed a drunk-driving law in 1910; Robert Borkenstein’s Breathalyzer (1954) made BAC-based laws practical.
- California’s 0.08 BAC limit took effect January 1, 1990; all states had adopted 0.08 by 2004.
- In Taylor v. Superior Court (1979), the California Supreme Court allowed punitive damages against drunk drivers who act with conscious disregard for safety.
Part 4 of 20 in our weekly series Car Accident Law Through History, by attorney Sean Keshishyan.
Drunk driving has been illegal in parts of the United States for more than a century, yet for much of that time it was treated as a minor offense and was hard to prove. The modern system of breath tests, fixed blood alcohol limits and tough penalties is surprisingly recent.
This article traces how drunk-driving law developed, from the first state statutes to the national 0.08 standard, and looks at a side of the issue that gets less attention: the civil liability of an impaired driver to the people he or she injures, including the possibility of punitive damages in California.
The First Laws: Illegal but Hard to Prove
New Jersey enacted one of the first statutes aimed at intoxicated drivers in 1906, and New York passed its own drunk-driving law in 1910. Other states followed. These early laws simply prohibited driving while intoxicated. They did not define intoxication with a number, so prosecutors had to rely on observations such as slurred speech or unsteady walking.
Science gradually filled that gap. By 1941, New York had amended its law so that a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.15 percent or more was treated as evidence of intoxication, a level far higher than today’s limit.
The Breathalyzer and the Numbers Era
In 1954, Robert Borkenstein, then director of the Indiana State Police laboratory, developed the Breathalyzer, a compact and practical device for estimating blood alcohol from a breath sample. Borkenstein, who later taught at Indiana University, helped make roadside and station-house testing routine. Reliable measurements made it possible for legislatures to write laws based on a specific BAC, not just on an officer’s impressions.
MADD, the Drinking Age and 0.08
The biggest shift in public attitudes came from victims’ families. On May 3, 1980, 13-year-old Cari Lightner was killed in Fair Oaks, California, by a repeat drunk driver while walking to a church carnival. Her mother, Candace Lightner, founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) that year. The group pressed first California and then the nation for stronger laws.
Federal action followed:
- 1984: President Ronald Reagan signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act on July 17, 1984. It did not ban underage drinking directly; instead, it reduced federal highway funding for states that allowed people under 21 to buy alcohol, and every state eventually complied.
- 1983–1990: Utah and Oregon lowered their per se limit from 0.10 to 0.08 in 1983. California’s 0.08 limit took effect on January 1, 1990.
- 2000–2004: In October 2000, Congress made 0.08 the national standard by tying it to highway funds. By 2004, every state had adopted it.
California DUI Law Today
Under California Vehicle Code section 23152, it is unlawful to drive under the influence of alcohol, to drive with a BAC of 0.08 percent or more, or to drive under the influence of drugs or a combination of alcohol and drugs. Commercial drivers face a stricter 0.04 percent limit. These criminal and administrative consequences are handled separately from any civil claim an injured person may bring.
Civil Liability: Punitive Damages and Taylor v. Superior Court
A driver who injures someone while impaired can be sued for compensatory damages such as medical bills, lost income and pain and suffering, just like any negligent driver. Because DUI laws exist to protect other people on the road, a violation can also support a presumption of negligence under California’s negligence per se rule.
A harder question was whether an intoxicated driver could also owe punitive damages, which are meant to punish and deter rather than compensate. For years, California courts said no, following Gombos v. Ashe (1958). In Taylor v. Superior Court, decided August 21, 1979, the California Supreme Court changed course. The defendant in that case allegedly had a long history of alcoholism, several prior drunk-driving arrests and convictions, a previous serious crash, and a pending drunk-driving charge. The court held that driving while intoxicated may amount to “malice” under Civil Code section 3294 when it is done with a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences, and it disapproved Gombos.
Today, Civil Code section 3294 allows punitive damages only when a plaintiff proves oppression, fraud or malice by clear and convincing evidence, and it defines malice to include despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard for the safety of others. Whether that standard is met depends on the facts of each case.
What It Means for California Drivers Today
For people hurt by an impaired driver, a few points stand out:
- Criminal and civil cases run on separate tracks. A civil claim does not depend on a DUI conviction, although evidence from the criminal case, such as test results, may be relevant.
- Punitive damages are possible but not automatic. Under Taylor and section 3294, the focus is on the driver’s conscious disregard for others’ safety.
- Those who served the alcohol are usually not liable. California Civil Code section 1714 generally shields social hosts who provide alcohol, with an exception for adults who knowingly furnish alcohol to someone under 21 at their home.
- Deadlines apply. The general time limit to file a personal injury lawsuit in California is two years under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1.
From a vaguely worded 1910 statute to a precise 0.08 standard, drunk-driving law has changed dramatically. Alongside it, California civil law has developed its own tools for holding impaired drivers accountable to the people they harm.
Injured in a car accident? The history in this series shows how California law came to protect people hurt by careless drivers and defective vehicles. If you or a family member has been injured, the Law Office of Sean Keshishyan in Glendale offers free consultations. Call (818) 246-6934 or send us a message.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change and every situation is different. Please speak with a qualified attorney about your specific circumstances.
