The type of conduct justifying an award of punitive damages is an act committed with an evil motive or with reckless indifference to the rights and safety of others. Courts vary in what is necessary to support an award. Some courts have assessed punitive damages against a driver based solely on his or her voluntary drunkenness. Other courts have imposed very stringent proof requirements on the plaintiff. Courts do not award punitive damages to compensate victims for their injuries, but rather to punish and deter wrongdoers. The article identifies three categories of punitive damage cases. In the first group, the courts recognize that the act of drinking and driving is sufficiently reckless to warrant an award. In this group, the plaintiff need only show that the driver was intoxicated and the accident occurred. The voluntary drunkenness of the defendant is sufficient to support the award. The second category of cases requires that the plaintiff show facts establishing reckless conduct beyond the fact that the defendant was intoxicated. In the third category of cases, courts have denied punitive damage awards. In many of these cases, the plaintiff's injuries were minor and the defendant's intoxication minimal. The article discusses the legal concepts of presumption of malice, proximate cause, and foreseeability of harm. Considerable analysis of North Dakota law is included. 310 footnotes.