 This language was added into the statute in 1987, which shows the legislature’s intent that punitive damages should only be awarded against defendant’s who intended their actions, even if they did not intend their consequences.  In the case, Hoch v. Allied-Signal, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 615 (1994), the plaintiffs sued a seatbelt manufacturer for a wrongful death claim arguing that the defective seatbelt design caused the death of the decedent. The plaintiffs presented evidence that Allied-Signal never tested the seatbelt latch for “inertial unlatching” which they argued is what caused the decedent’s seatbelt to come unlatched. Id. at 617. They also presented evidence that over 20 years prior to Hoch’s rollover accident, Ford and the manufacturer released a “position paper” that stated they planned to redesign the seat-belt due to their fear of “inertial seat belt separation.” Id. at 618. Despite this evidence the court ruled that the evidence did not clearly show that Allied-Signal “was aware a probable danger existed that type one buckles would unlatch under the conditions of an actual automobile accident.” Id. at 621. Without this knowledge, it was not possible that Allied-Signal “willfully” disregarded the rights of the plaintiffs. 
	A case where the defendant was found to have acted willfully is, Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apts., 90 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 (2009).  In this case, the plaintiff Lori Spinks was promised housing as a part of an employment agreement she reached with her employer. However, after Spinks suffered an industrial accident she was terminated from her position, and the employer asked the landlord to forcefully evict Spinks by changing the locks on her apartment. Id. at 463. Based o Equity’s actions, Spinks sued claiming twelve causes of action, including a request for punitive damages. Id. The court overturned the trial courts summary judgment on the punitive damage claim, holding that the plaintiff presented enough evidence to state a claim that Equity acted maliciously. The court reasoned that not only did Equity “willfully” take steps to remove the plaintiff from her apartment; they did so despite “concerns about the legality of the acts and about their effects on [the] plaintiff’s welfare.” Id. at 494. 
	These cases determine that the plaintiff in the D&D litigation will have to present evidence that Mr. Martin acted willfully in ignoring the applesauce spill. The facts of the case state that Martin was informed on two separate occasions of the spill, and both times failed to have the spill cleaned. This prior knowledge is similar to Spinks, where the landlord knew the law regarding forceful eviction of tenants and still illegally changed the locks on Spinks’ apartment. Also, considering that Martin not only failed to have the spill cleaned, but did so with the knowledge that multiple customers had slipped in the past, presents a strong case for the plaintiff that Martin willfully disregarded the potential harmful consequences of not cleaning up the applesauce. 
