Despicable conduct has further been defined in the BAJI as, “conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.” Mock v. Michigan Millers, 5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 594, 609 (1992). Each of these elements will be analyzed below. 
	In the punitive damage statute the California legislature recognized two types of conduct that can be characterized as malicious: conduct done with the intent to harm, or conduct that was not committed with the intent to harm, but is so “unreasonable and dangerous” that the defendant should have known that the resulting harm was “highly probable.” This sort of conduct is known as “conscious disregard.” Nolin v. National Convenience Stores Inc, 157 Cal. Rptr. 32, 36 (1979). In another case that defined conscious disregard, Taylor v. Superior Court, the plaintiff Cameron Taylor suffered severe injuries after being hit by a drunk driver, the defendant Clair Stille. Taylor, 890 at 892. In Taylor, the court is faced with the issue of whether the act of drunk driving meets the “malicious” conduct requirement. The court decides that the line between gross negligence and malicious conduct had been crossed, because the defendant had knowledge of the safety hazards of driving while intoxicated, but still choose to drive anyways. Id. at 896. It was reasoned that a person who chooses to drink to the point of intoxication, knowing that later they will be operating an inherently dangerous vehicle, is exhibiting “a conscious disregard of the safety of others,” and the awarding of punitive damages is appropriate. Id. at 897
To establish that the defendant acted while ignoring the rights of the plaintiff, evidence must be presented that shows the defendant was aware of the “dangerous consequences” of an action and failed to avoid them. College Hosp., Inc. v. Super. Ct. of Orange Co., 882 P.2d 894, 911 (Cal. 1994). In College Hospital,  the plaintiff, Laura Crowell was a patient receiving outpatient treatment for agoraphobia and panic disorders. Id. at 901. Shortly after being admitted to the hospital, Mrs. Crowell began an extramarital affair with a hospital employee named Robert Berry who was not involved in her treatment. After the relationship ended, Mrs. Crowell “suffered a ‘breakdown’” and was transferred to another hospital. Based on these events the plaintiff sued the hospital based on a “breach of a duty to provide competent therapeutic care.” Id. The plaintiff sought punitive damages against the hospital based on the argument that Berry’s supervisor, Mr. Westbrook acted maliciously because he knew of the affair and did nothing to stop it. However, the evidence concerning Mr. Westbrook’s knowledge stated that he only heard “third-hand” about the relationship, and after hearing this rumor he confronted Berry who denied the allegations. Id. at 910-911. Considering this evidence, the court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim that Westbrook acted maliciously. 