Court Opinion

ID: 9693405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:40:01.987058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:45.957096
License: Public Domain

ABRAHAMS, Bankruptcy Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur with the other members of this panel that this judgment should be reversed but cannot agree with the reasoning the majority provides to guide the trial court on remand.
The essence of my disagreement was expressed by In re Hostetler, 3 Bankr.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶ 70,186 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Fla.1984):
Courts which have considered the question of the dischargeability, vel non, of a debt resulting from damages or injuries inflicted on innocent victims by an intoxicated driver have struggled to reconcile the stringent intent requirement imposed by the phrase “willful and malicious injury” with the notion of permitting a wrongdoer to escape the consequences of conduct generally considered to be repulsive or at least grossly reprehensible.
The majority stresses preventing the wrongdoer from escaping the consequences of drunk driving.1 I agree with the majority’s goal but believe that its approach strays too far from the statutory command that the injury be “willful and malicious.” With this divergence in mind, I analyze the matter as follows:
I.
Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code makes nondischargeable any debt for “willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or the property of another entity.” The phrase “willful and malicious injury” has been variously interpreted in drunk driving cases. E.g., In re Greenwell, 21 B.R. 419 (S.D.Ohio 1982) (defendant who drank intentionally was responsible for “natural outcome” of his acts); Matter of Wooten, 30 B.R. 357 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ala.1983) (willful and malicious injury because debtor intentionally intoxicated himself and then intentionally drove); In re Bryson, 3 B.R. 593 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill.1980) (drunk driving debts always dischargeable because driver does not intend to injure victim). The bankruptcy judge here ruled that recklessness was not enough and that a specific intent to injure the plaintiff was required. The majority, however, joins other courts that have construed the phrase to *241allow what is at most a reckless drunk driving injury to create a nondischargeable debt. E.g., Den Haerynck v. Thompson, 228 F.2d 72 (10th Cir.1955); Harrison v. Donnelly, 153 F.2d 588 (8th Cir.1946); In re Irwin, 2 B.C.D. 783 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Iowa 1976).
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and these panels have not spoken on the issue of recklessness as opposed to specific intent in drunk driving cases, but have recently considered this question in cases of conversion and defamation.
In Matter of Kasler, 611 F.2d 308 (9th Cir.1979), the court of appeals rejected the recklessness standard for dischargeability of a debt based on California libel and trade disparagement law. The court considered whether a state court judgment necessarily included a finding of willfulness under section 17a(8) of the former Bankruptcy Act, the predecessor of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Section 17a(8) made nondischargeable debts for “willful and malicious injuries to the person or property of another.” The court looked to Tinker v. Colwell, 193 U.S. 473, 24 S.Ct. 505, 48 L.Ed. 754 (1904), for the meaning of willfulness stating, “The leading Supreme Court case defining the word willful in this section of the Bankruptcy Act stated that it meant ‘intentional and voluntary.’ ... We conclude that the proper definition of a ‘willful’ injury for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act is simply an intentional injury.” 611 F.2d at 310. The court then looked to California law and concluded that “since reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements could have underlain the arbitration judgments for libel and trade disparagement [the plaintiff] has failed to produce evidence that the arbitration liability was necessarily for ‘willful’ injuries.” 611 F.2d at 311.
In a footnote, Easier recognized the existence of, but declined to extend, a line of cases finding personal injury liabilities arising from reckless or negligent operation of automobiles to be nondischargeable. 611 F.2d at 310 n. 7. The court said that it would “be inclined to limit those cases to situations involving ‘intentional disregard of human life,’ ... or ‘reckless indifference to the safety of human life.’ ” Id.2 Moreover, Easier observed that
[i]n the legislative history accompanying the Bankruptcy Act of 1978, Congress made it unmistakeable that only deliberate or intentional acts should be considered “willful,” and that mere reckless disregard did not qualify. H.R.Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 365 (1977), reprinted in [1978] U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, at pp. 5787, 6320-21; S.Rep. No. 989, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess. 79, reprinted in [1978] U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, at pp. 5787, 5865.
Id. However, Easier then stated that “the new Bankruptcy [Code], which this Congressional intent informed, is not involved in this case.” Id.
The Bankruptcy Code did apply to In re Cecchini, 37 B.R. 671 (Bkrtcy.App. Panel 9th Cir.), appeal filed, No. 84-2265 (9th Cir.1984), which also rejects the recklessness standard. Cecchini concerned the dis-chargeability of a debt based upon the conversion of checks. The debtor, who had a genuine though mistaken belief that the plaintiff owed him money, forged the plaintiff’s name on checks and cashed them. On review under the “clearly erroneous” standard, the appellate panel affirmed a finding that the debt was dischargeable. The panel noted the Congress was aware of the conflicting interpretations of “willful and malicious” under section 17a(8) of the Bankruptcy Act when it included that language in section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. After reviewing the same legislative history that Easier discussed, the panel stated: “Congress intended a ‘reckless injury’ ... to be specifically excluded from the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)_ [T]he plaintiff must show that the debtors *242acted with the intent to injure the plaintiff before the plaintiff can obtain relief....” 37 B.R. at 675. Because the plaintiff in Cecchini had not proved that the debtor intended to injure the plaintiff, the debt was dischargeable.
I do not believe that the Code intended to require actual intent for conversion and defamation but a recklessness standard— or, as the majority seems to be suggesting by talking of reasonable care, a negligence standard — for drunk driving. The question is not what is the proper penalty for drunk driving but what Congress meant by “willful and malicious” injury. If Congress did not draft the statute to include drunk driving, it is not for us to legislate it in.3
Instead of an intentional injury, the majority looks to an intent to drink. But, simply stated, the intent to drink cannot be a substitute for the intent to injure because drinking usually does not cause bodily injury to third parties.4 We are not considering those “who choose to engage in gun battles in public places,” as in the majority’s analogy, but those who choose to drink. The majority’s conclusions would be more acceptable if limited to the facts of this case or to drinking that was likely to result in both driving and injury to others.
II.
The bankruptcy judge dismissed the complaint on motion of the defendant, holding the debt to be dischargeable because there was not explicit intent to injure the plaintiff. This ruling fails to account for the distorting effects of alcohol. Although Easier and Cecchini require an intent to injure the plaintiff, this rule must be modified in drunk driving cases for two reasons: first, a specific intent is difficult— and often impossible — to determine in these cases and, second, the actor should not benefit from interfering with his own ability to form a specific intent.
In these cases, where drinking has clouded the defendant’s thought processes, I would satisfy the specific intent requirement by using the approach announced by In re Rainey, 1 B.R. 569 (Bkrtcy.D.Or.1979): “This Court believes that an act which is wrongful and necessarily causes injury for § 17a(8) purposes is an act which has the same ‘substantial certainty’ of causing injury ... mentioned in the Restatement [(Second) of Torts § 500 and § 8A comment b].” Id. at 573. The court then quoted from comment b:
All consequences which the actor desires to bring about are intended.... Intent is not, however, limited to consequences which are desired. If the actor knows that the consequences are certain, or substantially certain, to result from his act, and still goes ahead, he is treated by the law as if he had in fact desired to produce the result. As the probability ... becomes less than substantial certainty, the actor’s conduct loses the character of intent, and becomes mere recklessness.
Id. at 573 (emphasis added by Rainey). Thus, an injury would be willful and malicious under section 523(a)(6) if it is the result of conduct that the driver knows is substantially certain to cause an injury.
Even this test is flawed, however, to the extent it requires an actual understanding of the risks when voluntary intoxication prevents full recognition of those risks. Instead of a futile search for what was in the driver’s mind, the test must be modified into an objective standard: whether or not a person in normal control of his faculties *243would have realized the injury was substantially certain to occur. In determining this question, the trial court should consider all of the circumstances as to the likelihood of the injury. The drinking (and the degree of impairment of driving ability caused by the drinking) combined with other factors such as speed, traffic, the presence of hazards, and prior instances of injury caused by the defendant’s drunk driving will all be relevant to deciding if the defendant should have known of a substantial certainty of injury.
III.
The majority finds exception from discharge whenever there is (1) intoxication5 and injury caused by a lack of reasonable care resulting from the intoxication. Even if Easier and Cecchini are ignored, I cannot hold that these two factors will always satisfy the obvious meaning of the words “willful and malicious,” particularly if the drinking has only slightly impaired the debtor’s ability to drive and there are additional factors contributing to the injury.
Two examples illustrate my thinking. In the first, the debtor is driving on an unlighted road at a speed well within the speed limits. Suddenly, the plaintiff, dressed in dark clothing, runs across the road. The debtor has had only a small amount to drink, but enough to impair his driving so that he cannot swerve in time to miss the plaintiff. On these facts, the words “willful and malicious” simply do not apply. In the second example, the debtor has had a large amount to drink and his driving ability is seriously impaired. He has a history of drunk driving injuries. Observers have suggested that he not drive. Nevertheless, he drives down a crowded road at a great speed, crosses into oncoming traffic, and strikes plaintiff. On these facts, the conduct is “willful and malicious” because the debtor should have realized that he created a substantial certainty of injury.
CONCLUSION
Although I join in condemning the defendant’s alleged misconduct here, I cannot stretch “willful and malicious” to include all drinking that results in reckless or negligent injury, as the majority has done. I would reverse the judgment but require a substantial certainty standard upon the remand.

. As used here, "drunk driving" is a general term referring to driving whenever the driver's ability is impaired to any extent by alcohol or other drugs.

. This language does not support the majority’s reasoning. The majority’s standard distinguishes the drunk driver who endangers life from the sober driver who endangers life, not the drunk driver who endangers property from the one who endangers life as the Kasler footnote suggests.

. As the majority points out, the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-353, added a new 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(9) that excepts from discharge certain judgment debts arising from driving while "legally intoxicated.” This is one solution to the problem posed by drinking and driving. This legislation does not affect whether conduct also falls under the “willful and malicious injury” standard.

. See, e.g., Taylor v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.3d 890, 907, 157 Cal.Rptr. 693, 598 P.2d 854 (1979) (Clark, J., dissenting) ("While driving intoxicated is dangerous, injury is not probable. Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Californians each week reach home without accident despite their driving intoxicated.").

. The majority gives us no definition of "intoxication.” Does it mean, e.g., slightly impaired ability, markedly impaired ability, "falling down drunk,” or a specific blood alcohol level?