The court comes to this conclusion based on the reasoning that there was no evidence that Westbrook was “aware that the rumored relationship between Berry and Laura was sexual or destructive…or that Berry lied when confronted with the rumor about Laura.” Id. at 911. If the plaintiff cannot prove that the defendant had knowledge of the harmful consequences of the action, then their case for punitives fails on its face. 
  An example of a case where the court found the defendant did have the prerequisite knowledge of harmful consequences, is the slip-and-fall case Nolin v. National Convenience Stores. In this case the plaintiff, Iris Nolin sued National Convenience Stores, because the defendants failed to fix a defective gas nozzle, which for five months would overflow with gas and leak onto the ground. Nolin, at 284. The manager was aware of the conditions because two customers had already slipped on the gasoline prior to Nolin’s accident, and multiple employees had requested maintenance work on the nozzle. Id. at 284-285. The court discussed the intent underlying the manager’s lack of action to repair the dangerous conditions by stating, “conduct classified only as unintentional carelessness, while it may constitute negligence or even gross negligence, will not support an award of punitive damages.” Id. at 285-286.  The court stated that the difference between negligent conduct, and unintentional malicious conduct is that malicious conduct involves “intention to perform an act that the actor knows, or should know, will very probably cause harm.” Id. at 286. The court found that the plaintiff presented ample evidence to support the punitive damage award, because the defendant was aware of the dangerous situation, and their failure to rectify this situation “showed a complete lack of concern regarding the harmful potential—the probability and likelihood of injury.” Id. at 288. 
	These cases establish that absent an express intent to cause harm, the conduct in question must be more than negligent, but show that the defendant acted despite knowing the probable harm of his conduct. In our case, the manager did not intend to harm Jennifer Palmer by failing to have the applesauce cleaned up, so Palmer has the burden of proving that Paul Martin’s actions were more than negligent. To do this she must show that he knew of the potential and likely dangerousness of the situation and intentionally ignored them. Palmer will have a strong case, considering that five slip-and-fall incidents had occurred at D&D’s in the nine months prior to Palmer’s accident. This evidence is similar to the facts in Nolin, where multiple falls had occurred on the premises. It is a reasonable argument that Martin should have known of the potential harmful consequences of the spill and taken immediate action to remedy the situation. 
	To further clarify what conduct can be considered as “conscious disregard” we must  examine the language of the statute that states that the conduct must be a “willful” disregard of the “rights or safety of others.” Cal. Civ. Code §(c)(1).
