The plaintiffs in this malicious prosecution won a judgment in their favor after a bench trial, but they were disappointed that the trial judge did not award punitive damages. They appealed, arguing they were entitled to punitive damages as a matter of law.
The Court of Appeal (First District, Division Three) agreed that the plaintiffs presented “abundant evidence” to support a finding that the defendant acted with malice. The unpublished opinion went on to explain, however, that even when the evidence could support a finding of malice, a jury (or a court in a bench trial) is never required to award punitive damages. As prior courts have explained, a plaintiff is never entitled to punitive damages as a matter of right. Accordingly, the court here found no basis for overturning the trial court’s decision not to award punitive damages.