IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION TWO

AMY PURDY, AS WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTORY TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF THE 

SURVIVORS OF DECEDENT MARGERY ANN JONES, AND JOHN BROSS,

Petitioners,

v.

HON. D. DOUGLAS METCALF,

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA,

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIMA,

Respondent,

and

REPUBLIC SERVICES OF ARIZONA HAULING, LLC; REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.,

A DELAWARE CORPORATION; ISIDRO E. ROSAS HERNANDEZ

AND JANE DOE ROSAS HERNANDEZ,

Real Parties in Interest.

No. 2 CA-SA 2021-0039

Filed November 8, 2021

Special Action Proceeding

Pima County Cause No. C20195037

JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED

COUNSEL

Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Kansas City, Missouri

By Jack T. Hyde, Jeffrey M. Kuntz, and Adam S. Davis

and 

Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally P.C., Phoenix

By José de Jesus Rivera and Nathan B. Webb

Counsel for Petitioners
PURDY v. METCALF

Opinion of the Court

2

Humphrey & Petersen P.C., Tucson

By Andrew J. Petersen and Joseph H. Ricks

Ernest S. Bustamante & Associates PLLC, Phoenix

By Ernest S. Bustamante

and

Wright Close & Barger LLP, Houston, Texas

By Thomas C. Wright and Jessica Z. Barger

Counsel for Real Parties in Interest

OPINION

Vice Chief Judge Staring authored the opinion of the Court, in which

Presiding Judge Espinosa and Judge Eppich concurred.

S T A R I N G, Vice Chief Judge:

¶1 Special-action petitioners Amy Purdy and John Bross, 

plaintiffs in the underlying action, challenge the respondent judge’s grant 

of partial summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages in favor of 

real parties in interest Republic Services of Arizona Hauling LLC, Republic 

Services Inc. (collectively, Republic), and Isidro Rosas Hernandez. The 

overarching issue is whether punitive damages are potentially recoverable 

in the underlying wrongful-death lawsuit, which arises from a motorvehicle collision caused by a commercial truck driver, Hernandez, who 

was, among other things, allegedly using a cell phone at the time of the 

collision. For the reasons that follow, we accept special-action jurisdiction 

and grant relief.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶2 We view the facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the 

light most favorable to the petitioners as the non-moving party. See Link v. 

Pima County, 193 Ariz. 336, ¶ 12 (App. 1998). On August 5, 2019, around

11:11 a.m., Hernandez, who was employed by Republic as a residential 

garbage truck driver, was driving eastbound on Tangerine Road in the 

Town of Oro Valley. The Peterbilt garbage truck he was driving had a gross 
PURDY v. METCALF

Opinion of the Court

3

vehicle weight of approximately 49,320 pounds, as well as complete sets of 

driving controls on both the left and right sides of the cab. At the time of 

the collision, Hernandez was using the controls on the right side. Margery 

Jones was stopped on North Innovation Market Drive at the intersection of

Tangerine Road in her Honda Accord, with Bross, her husband, in the 

passenger seat. The light for northbound traffic on North Innovation 

Market Drive turned green, and Jones proceeded straight. Hernandez ran 

the red light, continuing on Tangerine Road into the intersection and 

collided with Jones’s car, severely injuring Bross and killing Jones, who was 

pronounced dead at the scene. 

¶3 In October 2019, Jones’s surviving daughter, Purdy, and Bross 

filed this wrongful-death lawsuit against Republic and Hernandez 

(collectively, defendants), alleging claims of negligence; negligence per se; 

negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention; negligent infliction of 

emotional distress; and punitive damages. The following came to light 

during discovery.

¶4 According to Republic’s employee policy, operating the 

garbage truck from the right side of the cab is only permitted for trash 

pickup, during which the driver should never exceed fifteen miles per hour 

(mph).1 The speed limit for Tangerine Road at the site of the collision is 

forty-five mph. Hernandez was driving 51.45 mph in the 8.5 seconds 

leading up to the collision. 

¶5 Hernandez had two cell phones in his possession at the time 

of the collision—a personal phone and one issued by Republic. At the 

collision scene, an Oro Valley police officer inspected the personal phone, 

checking the call and text logs to see if Hernandez had any calls or messages 

at the time of the collision. The phone showed a call to Hernandez’s 

supervisor, Jose Flores, at 11:10:35 a.m., and Flores, who was standing 

nearby, explained to the officer that Hernandez had called him to report the 

collision. Hernandez’s personal phone was released to him, and, months 

later, when he was asked to turn it over for the lawsuit, all the data had 

been deleted. Flores took Hernandez’s work-issued cell phone and placed 

it in his desk drawer at the office. The phone’s service was turned off due 

 

1Although Republic’s Safe Actions for Excellence handbook indicates

that driving from the right side of a “[d]ual drive/stand up right side” truck 

is reserved for “collection . . . from stop to stop at speeds no greater than 20 

mph,” the door decal posted in Hernandez’s “[d]ual drive/dual sit” truck 

stated that the driver should “never exceed 15 mph.” 
PURDY v. METCALF

Opinion of the Court

4

to inactivity, and, when Flores changed positions, his replacement sent the 

phone back to the service provider after finding it in the desk drawer. 

Republic’s counsel was able to locate the phone and have it returned, but 

all the data from that phone had also been deleted. 

¶6 Hernandez was charged with two counts of violating A.R.S. 

§ 28-672, which makes a civil traffic violation a criminal misdemeanor when 

the violation causes serious physical injury or death. At his deposition, 

Hernandez invoked the Fifth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution, refusing to answer any questions related to his cell-phone 

usage at the time of the collision. 

¶7 In April 2021, defendants filed a motion for partial summary 

judgment on the issue of punitive damages. They argued there was “no 

evidence that would persuade a rational trier of fact that . . . Hernandez 

acted with an ‘evil mind.’” Specifically, defendants asserted, “Running a 

red light at a speed slightly over the speed limit is nothing more than 

negligence.” In addition, they maintained there was “insufficient evidence 

to prove that . . . Hernandez was on a cell phone” and, even assuming he 

was, “[c]ell phone use alone . . . is insufficient for punitive damages.” 

¶8 In their opposition to the motion for partial summary 

judgment, plaintiffs argued there was “ample evidence” that Hernandez 

“was using a cell phone while he ran a red light at high speed.” They

pointed out that an Oro Valley Police Department report placed the crash 

between 11:10:51 and 11:10:59 a.m., and Hernandez had phoned Flores at 

11:10:35 a.m.—a call that lasted until 11:11:45 a.m. Plaintiffs also observed 

that there had been “substantial” data transfers on both of Hernandez’s cell 

phones that morning, including at the time of the collision. To further 

support their claim that Hernandez had been using his phone, plaintiffs

offered the affidavit of an expert who opined that Hernandez had been 

operating the truck on cruise control at the time of the collision. Because 

the truck was “traveling at a constant” 51.45 mph in the “8.5 second period 

prior to impact,” the expert observed that Hernandez must have set the 

cruise control at that speed. In addition, plaintiffs maintained that, even if 

defendants were correct that cell-phone use alone does not support 

punitive damages, “there are numerous other factors present in this case 

that courts have held to support punitive damages,” including speeding, 

running a red light, causing a severe crash, reckless driving, statutory 

violations, destruction of evidence, and dangerous driving history. 

¶9 In their reply, defendants disputed that Hernandez had been 

on the phone with Flores at the time of the collision, pointing out that a
PURDY v. METCALF

Opinion of the Court

5

9-1-1 call reporting the collision came in at 11:10:49 a.m. They also asserted 

that any data usage had been the result of the network communicating with 

internet-enabled devices and did not establish Hernandez was actively 

using his phone. Additionally, they provided an affidavit from the 

Southwest Area Fleet and Equipment Manager, who stated that “[c]ruise 

control on the entire Republic fleet of Peterbilt trucks is disabled and only 

operable between 19-25 mph.” 

¶10 After hearing oral argument, the respondent judge granted 

the motion for partial summary judgment. The respondent explained that 

Hernandez’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment “is not enough, by itself, 

to prove that he was distracted or did this intentionally or recklessly.” The 

respondent further determined that the Oro Valley Police Department 

report would not be admissible at trial to show the time of the collision

because “[t]here’s no foundation as to where that number came from.” The 

respondent thus concluded there was “no evidence” the collision had 

occurred after Hernandez initiated the call with Flores. He further 

determined plaintiffs had not met their burden of showing they were

entitled to punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence. This 

petition for special action followed. 

Special-Action Jurisdiction

¶11 Our decision to accept special-action jurisdiction is “highly 

discretionary.” Ariz. R. P. Spec. Act. 3 bar committee note. “We do not 

favor accepting special action jurisdiction to review the propriety of 

interlocutory orders and pretrial rulings, such as orders granting or 

denying partial summary judgment . . . .” Piner v. Superior Court, 192 Ariz. 

182, ¶ 8 (1998). Instead, “[a]ppeal after final judgment is generally the 

proper remedy for trial court errors in granting motions for summary

judgment.” Bledsoe v. Goodfarb, 170 Ariz. 256, 257 (1991).

¶12 However, we may accept special-action jurisdiction when the 

respondent judge erred as a matter of law, see Pima County v. McCarville, 

224 Ariz. 366, ¶ 6 (App. 2010), and addressing the issue “will serve the 

interests of judicial economy,” Althaus v. Cornelio, 203 Ariz. 597, ¶ 3 

(App. 2002); see also ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini, 207 Ariz. 162, ¶ 10 (App. 2004) 

(accepting special-action jurisdiction, in part, to avoid “unnecessary 

expenditure of time and money”). Additionally, special-action jurisdiction 

is appropriate if the case “involves an issue of first impression and an issue 

of law likely to recur.” Snyder v. Donato, 211 Ariz. 117, ¶ 6 (App. 2005).
PURDY v. METCALF

Opinion of the Court

6

¶13 Here, as explained below, the respondent judge erred as a 

matter of law by granting the motion for partial summary judgment. 

Addressing the issue of punitive damages now will likely prevent a second 

trial after appeal. Moreover, the issue of whether punitive damages are

recoverable in a lawsuit stemming from a motor-vehicle collision caused by 

a driver distracted by a cell phone is an issue of first impression that is likely 

to recur. We therefore exercise our discretion and accept special-action 

jurisdiction.

Standard of Review

¶14 The trial court must “grant summary judgment if the moving 

party shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 

56(a). Put another way, summary judgment is not appropriate if the court 

must evaluate the credibility of witnesses with different versions of 

material facts, weigh the quality of evidence, or choose among competing 

inferences. Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 311 (1990). “In reviewing a 

decision on a motion for summary judgment, we determine de novo whether 

any genuine issues of fact exist and whether the trial court erred in its 

application of the law.” Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc., 207 Ariz. 495, ¶ 14 

(App. 2004). 

¶15 “Summary judgment dismissing a punitive damages claim is 

appropriate in the absence of facts sufficient to show by clear and

convincing evidence that the defendant acted with the requisite evil 

mind.”2 SWC Baseline & Crismon Invs., L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P’ship, 

228 Ariz. 271, ¶ 74 (App. 2011). “If a court finds that ‘a reasonable jury 

could find the requisite evil mind by clear and convincing evidence,’ then 

the court must deny a motion for summary judgment on the issue of 

punitive damages.” Quintero v. Rogers, 221 Ariz. 536, ¶ 17 (App. 2009)

(quoting Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Prods. Co., 171 Ariz. 550, 558 

(1992)). A tortfeasor manifests an “evil mind” for purposes of punitive 

damages “if he either ‘intended to injure the plaintiff’ or ‘consciously 

pursued a course of conduct knowing that it created a substantial risk of 

significant harm to others.’” Id. ¶ 16 (quoting Gurule v. Ill. Mut. Life & Cas. 

Co., 152 Ariz. 600, 602 (1987)); see also Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 

 

2“Evidence is clear and convincing if it makes ‘the thing to be proved 

. . . highly probable or reasonably certain.’” Parker v. City of Tucson, 

233 Ariz. 422, ¶ 39 (App. 2013) (alteration in Parker) (quoting Kent K. v. 

Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, ¶ 25 (2005)).
PURDY v. METCALF

Opinion of the Court

7

150 Ariz. 326, 330 (1986) (“The wrongdoer must be consciously aware of the 

wrongfulness or harmfulness of his conduct and yet continue to act in the 

same manner in deliberate contravention to the rights of the victim.”). And, 

a “defendant’s state of mind may be evidenced by other factors and may be 

established or inferred even if [his] conduct was outwardly unexceptional.” 

Gurule, 152 Ariz. at 602. 

Punitive Damages

¶16 Plaintiffs argue the respondent judge erred by granting the 

motion for partial summary judgment because he “weighed the evidence 

and did not view [it] in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs.” They

maintain, “Call logs, evidence that Hernandez’s phones were using large 

volumes of data, and Hernandez’s refusal to answer questions about phone 

use all show that Hernandez was using his phones during the fatal crash.” 

In addition, they assert this case involves “numerous other factors” that

“created a heightened risk of a serious crash,” plus defendants destroyed

“relevant evidence.” Thus, they argue, the issue of punitive damages 

should be submitted to the jury. 

¶17 Generally, cell-phone use while driving, by itself, is

insufficient to support an award of punitive damages. See Saucedo ex rel. 

Sinaloa v. Salvation Army, 200 Ariz. 179, ¶ 11 (App. 2001) (“To recover 

punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove something more than the 

underlying tort.”); cf. Quintero, 221 Ariz. 536, ¶ 22 (speeding alone 

insufficient for punitive damages). However, under certain circumstances,

an individual who is using a cell phone while driving may manifest an “evil 

mind” for purposes of punitive damages by consciously pursuing a course 

of conduct knowing that it creates a substantial risk of significant harm to 

others. See Quintero, 221 Ariz. 536, ¶ 16; see also Grammatico v. Indus. 

Comm’n, 211 Ariz. 67, n.6 (2005) (discussing studies that demonstrate 

talking on cell phones while driving is “extremely dangerous”); Thomas E. 

Sherzan, “Talk 2 U L8R”—Why Cell Phones and Driving Have “G2G”: An 

Analysis of the Dangers of Cell Phone Use While Driving, 59 Drake L. Rev. 217, 

224 (2010) (discussing dangers of texting while driving). Such 

circumstances will usually involve a “series of events of deliberate bad faith 

or breaches of duty.” Quintero, 221 Ariz. 536, ¶ 21.

¶18 Turning to the case before us, we must first consider the 

evidence of Hernandez’s cell-phone use because the respondent judge 

treated it as dispositive in granting the motion for partial summary 

judgment. The record establishes Hernandez used both of his cell phones 

multiple times on the morning of the accident. The parties, however, 
PURDY v. METCALF

Opinion of the Court

8

dispute whether Hernandez’s call to Flores at 11:10:35 a.m. was during or 

after the collision, and they rely on conflicting reports of when the collision

occurred. The respondent determined evidence from the Oro Valley Police 

Department report indicating the collision occurred between 11:10:51 and 

11:10:59 a.m. would be inadmissible at trial because it lacked foundation. 

Below, plaintiffs admitted they had not yet “deposed anyone from the Oro 

Valley Police Department to determine where that number came from,” 

and they do not appear to have contested the court’s lack-of-foundation 

determination.3 See Ancell v. Union Station Assocs., Inc., 166 Ariz. 457, 460 

(App. 1990) (objection to insufficient documentation required so offering 

party may have opportunity to cure alleged defects; deficiencies in 

supporting documents attached to summary judgment pleadings can be 

waived).

¶19 Even setting aside the call to Flores, however, plaintiffs also 

presented evidence that data transfers had occurred on Hernandez’s cell 

phones at the time of the collision. An expert opined that the data transfers 

were “consistent with active usage by” Hernandez, pointing out that he 

may have been using an app or browsing the internet. Although 

defendants presented competing evidence—specifically, that “[d]ata usage 

will occur on a phone even without the owner of the phone actively using 

[it]”—that raises a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether 

Hernandez had been using his phone when he ran the red light. 

¶20 The respondent judge seemingly rejected plaintiffs’ evidence 

of data usage as too speculative, consistent with defendants’ argument. 

See Modular Mining Sys., Inc. v. Jigsaw Techs., Inc., 221 Ariz. 515, ¶ 19 

(App. 2009) (sheer speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment). 

But plaintiffs’ expert based his opinion, in part, on the lack of data available 

to him during his inspection of the phones, which he concluded was the 

result of the data having been deleted after the accident. This is a sufficient

fact upon which to base one’s opinion. See id. (expert affidavit opposing 

motion for summary judgment must set forth specific facts to support 

opinion); see also Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (requiring “specific facts” showing 

 

3In their reply brief, plaintiffs argue the evidence is admissible as “a 

certified police record.” But we do not address arguments raised for the 

first time in a reply. See Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Ormond Builders, Inc., 

216 Ariz. 379, n.7 (App. 2007).
PURDY v. METCALF

Opinion of the Court

9

genuine issue for trial). Plaintiffs’ evidence was therefore more than 

speculation.

4

¶21 Moreover, “litigants have a duty to preserve evidence which 

they know, or reasonably should know, ‘is relevant in the action, is 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is 

reasonably likely to be requested during discovery and/or is the subject of 

a pending discovery request.’” Souza v. Fred Carries Conts., Inc., 191 Ariz. 

247, 250 (App. 1997) (quoting Turner v. Hudson Transit Lines, Inc., 142 F.R.D. 

68, 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)). It is difficult to believe that Republic—a 

sophisticated corporate entity—would not have been aware of these 

requirements. Further, even assuming defendants inadvertently failed to 

preserve the data on both cell phones, they should not, in effect, be

rewarded with summary dismissal of plaintiffs’ punitive-damages claim

because plaintiffs’ expert lacked the necessary information to fully form his 

opinions. Cf. id. (dismissal of complaint “too harsh a sanction” when 

plaintiff failed to preserve evidence); McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc., 

231 Ariz. 244, ¶ 51 (App. 2013) (when party fails to preserve relevant 

evidence, trial court has discretion to impose sanctions, including 

instructing jury it may infer destroyed evidence would have been 

unfavorable to offending party).

¶22 Plaintiffs also contend, “Another critical reason that the trial 

court should not have granted judgment as a matter of law on this issue is 

that Hernandez refused to answer any questions about phone use during 

his deposition.” They point out that, “in civil cases, fact finders are entitled 

to draw negative inferences against those who assert Fifth Amendment 

rights against self-incrimination.” Wohlstrom v. Buchanan, 180 Ariz. 389, 391 

n.2 (1994); see also Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez, 222 Ariz. 48, ¶ 20 (App. 2009).

Defendants counter that an “adverse inference can only be drawn when 

independent evidence exists of the fact to which the party refuses to 

answer.” Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1264 (9th Cir. 

2000). 

¶23 However, “the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts 

are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Thompson, 171 Ariz. at 558 (quoting 

 

4 In Orme School, our supreme court admonished that “summary 

judgment should not be used as a substitute for jury trials simply because 

the trial judge may believe the moving party will probably win the jury’s 

verdict, nor even when the trial judge believes the moving party should win 

the jury’s verdict.” 166 Ariz. at 310.
PURDY v. METCALF

Opinion of the Court

10

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). With a motion for 

summary judgment, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, 

and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. (quoting 

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255); see also Stichting Ter Behartiging Van de Belangen 

Van Oudaandeelhouders In Het Kapitaal Van Saybolt Int’l B.V. v. Schreiber, 

407 F.3d 34, 55 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Even assuming that a jury might draw such 

inferences, however, we are required at summary judgment to draw all 

reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. . . .”). Hernandez’s 

refusal to answer any questions related to his cell-phone use therefore does 

not affect our summary-judgment analysis. Nevertheless, as discussed 

above, the parties presented competing evidence on this issue, and the 

respondent judge erred by weighing it. See Orme Sch., 166 Ariz. at 311.

¶24 Having found a genuine issue of material fact as to 

Hernandez’s cell-phone use, we must next consider the other circumstances 

in this case to determine whether plaintiffs are in possession of clear and 

convincing evidence that Hernandez acted with the requisite “evil mind.” 

See SWC Baseline & Crismon Invs., 228 Ariz. 271, ¶ 74. Hernandez was a 

professional driver. See Wilson v. Riley Whittle, Inc., 145 Ariz. 317, 322-23 

(App. 1984) (punitive damages may be awarded in higher amount against 

employer to encourage employer’s close control over employees). Indeed, 

he was driving a twenty-five-ton garbage truck. As a result of Hernandez’s 

conduct, Jones died and Bross suffered severe injuries. See Hawkins v. 

Allstate Ins. Co., 152 Ariz. 490, 497 (1987) (severity of harm relevant factor in 

awarding punitive damages). Hernandez was charged with two criminal 

misdemeanors. See Puz v. McDonald, 140 Ariz. 77, 78-79 (App. 1984) 

(criminal sanctions factor to consider in award of punitive damages). He

has a history of driving violations, including failing to stop for a red light 

in 2013 and crashing one Republic garbage truck into another in 2003. 

Cf. Jones v. Manhart, 120 Ariz. 338, 341 (App. 1978) (punitive damages 

properly submitted to jury in dog-bite case based on dog’s history and 

owner’s continued retention). And, as mentioned above, all the data was 

deleted from both of Hernandez’s cell phones. See Hawkins, 152 Ariz. at 497 

(defendant’s concealment of misconduct relevant to determination of 

punitive damages).

¶25 Plaintiffs also contend Hernandez was driving “recklessly” 

because he ran a red light while speeding, using cruise control, and 

operating the truck from the right-side controls, in violation of Republic’s

express policy. See Quintero, 221 Ariz. 536, ¶¶ 22-24 (defendant’s “reckless” 

behavior when weaving in and out of traffic at high rate of speed, which 

resulted in criminal convictions, sufficient to preclude summary judgment 
PURDY v. METCALF

Opinion of the Court

11

on punitive damages). The parties agree that Hernandez ran a red light and 

that he was speeding at 51.45 mph. However, they dispute by how much

he was speeding. Because Hernandez was driving from the right side of 

the truck and, pursuant to the decal affixed to the door, was not permitted 

to exceed fifteen mph, plaintiffs maintain he was speeding by more than 

thirty-five mph. Defendants, however, contend Hernandez was driving 

only six mph over the posted speed limit of forty-five mph. Defendants 

further assert that “driving from the right side of the truck did not affect the 

collision” because there were no obstructions in Hernandez’s line of sight. 

But regardless of whether Hernandez driving from the right side affected 

the collision, the fact that he was doing so is evidence of his state of mind

and disregard of express company safety policies, particularly when 

viewed in the totality of the circumstances. See Gurule, 152 Ariz. at 602 

(“The inquiry in every punitive damage case focuses on the defendant’s 

state of mind, which may be established by either direct or circumstantial 

evidence.”). 

¶26 The parties also dispute whether Hernandez was using cruise 

control. Plaintiffs offered the opinion of an expert that Hernandez’s driving 

was consistent with “having the cruise control engaged” based on the 

steady speed of the truck, despite various changes in the accelerator pedal 

position. In response, defendants provided an affidavit from the Southwest 

Area Fleet and Equipment Manager that cruise control is disabled on 

Republic’s fleet of Peterbilt trucks and “only operable between 19-25 mph.” 

But, as plaintiffs point out, the manager’s affidavit discusses the fleet 

generally without any specific mention of the truck involved in this 

collision. These disputes, therefore, raise genuine issues of material fact.

¶27 Viewing the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most 

favorable to plaintiffs, see Link, 193 Ariz. 336, ¶ 12, the circumstances 

presented here—including the cell-phone use, the running of the red light, 

the speeding, the driving from the right side of the truck, the use of cruise 

control, and Hernandez’s status as a professional driver—constitute a 

“series of events of deliberate bad faith or breaches of duty,” Quintero, 

221 Ariz. 536, ¶ 21; see also Saucedo, 200 Ariz. 179, ¶ 13 (“The requisite intent 

and outrageous and egregious conduct must occur in tandem with the 

conduct giving rise to the injury in order to recover punitive damages.”). 

Thus, on the record before us, a reasonable jury could find by clear and 

convincing evidence that Hernandez “consciously pursued a course of 

conduct knowing . . . it created a substantial risk of significant harm to 

others.” Quintero, 221 Ariz. 536, ¶ 16 (quoting Gurule, 152 Ariz. at 602); 

cf. Newman v. Select Specialty Hosp.-Ariz., Inc., 239 Ariz. 558, ¶ 16 (App. 2016) 
PURDY v. METCALF

Opinion of the Court

12

(remanding for new trial after trial court granted judgment as matter of law 

on punitive damages in action brought for injuries plaintiff sustained while 

in care of defendant hospital).

5 The respondent judge erred by concluding 

otherwise. See Maycock, 207 Ariz. 495, ¶ 14. 

Disposition

¶28 For the foregoing reasons, we accept special-action 

jurisdiction and grant relief. We vacate the respondent judge’s grant of

defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and remand for further 

proceedings.

 

5Our decision does not foreclose defendants’ ability to move for 

judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50, Ariz. R. Civ. P., if 

warranted by the evidence presented at trial.