§ 8.01-44.5.Punitive damages for persons injured by intoxicated drivers.
Chapter 3. Actions · Article 3. Injury to Person or Property · Last amended 2017 · Last verified July 16, 2026
In one sentenceAuthorizes punitive damages against an intoxicated driver, engineer, or operator whose conscious disregard for others caused an injury or death, ties that standard to a 0.15 blood-alcohol result or an unreasonable test refusal plus proof of known impairment, and lets the jury weigh later similar conduct in setting a deterrent amount.
Full Text of § 8.01-44.5
Text size
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.
Plain-English Summary
In any action for personal injury or death arising from the operation of a motor vehicle, engine, or train, the finder of fact may award punitive damages if the evidence proves the defendant acted with malice toward the plaintiff, or that the defendant’s conduct was so willful or wanton as to show a conscious disregard for the rights of others.
The section spells out one path to proving that willful-or-wanton standard through evidence of intoxication: a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15 percent or more at the time of the incident, proof that the defendant knew or should have known, while drinking or while operating the vehicle, that the defendant’s ability to operate it was or would be impaired, and proof that the intoxication proximately caused the injury or death. A rebuttable presumption ties the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the incident to the level shown in an official test certificate, and such a certificate is admissible as prima facie evidence of the facts it contains and of compliance with the relevant testing statutes. A second rebuttable presumption covers the knowledge element, presuming that a defendant who consumed alcohol knew or should have known of resulting impairment.
Where the defendant unreasonably refused a blood alcohol test, the section supplies an alternate path: proof that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the incident, established through evidence of conduct or condition, proof of the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of impairment, and proof of proximate cause. A certified copy of a court’s determination that the refusal was unreasonable serves as prima facie evidence of that fact, and the same rebuttable presumption about the defendant’s knowledge of impairment applies.
Finally, evidence that the same defendant engaged in similar conduct after the injury or death at issue is admissible at trial, for the limited purpose of letting the jury or other finder of fact decide what amount of punitive damages would appropriately deter the defendant and others from repeating that conduct.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must a plaintiff prove to get punitive damages from a drunk driver?
That the defendant acted with malice toward the plaintiff, or that the defendant’s conduct was so willful or wanton as to show a conscious disregard for the rights of others.
Does a 0.15 blood-alcohol test automatically prove punitive-damages-level misconduct?
A 0.15 or higher result is one element of the statutory path to that showing; the plaintiff must also prove the defendant knew or should have known of the resulting impairment and that the intoxication proximately caused the injury, though rebuttable presumptions can assist with both the blood alcohol level and the knowledge element.
What happens if the drunk-driving defendant refused a blood-alcohol test?
The section supplies an alternate path: proof of intoxication through conduct or condition evidence, proof the defendant knew or should have known of impairment, and proof of proximate cause, with a certified copy of a court’s unreasonable-refusal determination usable as prima facie evidence of the refusal.
Can evidence that the defendant drove drunk again after the crash be used at trial?
Yes. Evidence of similar conduct by the same defendant after the injury or death is admissible for the limited purpose of helping the jury determine an appropriate deterrent amount of punitive damages.
Does this section apply to accidents involving trains, or just cars?
It applies to injuries or deaths arising from the operation of a motor vehicle, engine, or train.
Amendment History
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.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Code of Virginia, published by the
Code of Virginia, Virginia Division of Legislative Automated Systems. Last verified July 16, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:virginia punitive damages drunk driving lawsuit8.01-44.5 intoxicated driver punitive damages0.15 blood alcohol punitive damages virginiarefusal to take breathalyzer punitive damages virginiava code willful wanton conduct drunk driver