Lackner suffered severe bruising and broke her leg and ankle as a result of the collision. Id. at 868-869. Lackner sued North and filed for punitive damages based on the argument that North was skiing recklessly because he was racing his teammates. Id. at 881. The Court disagreed and held that while North displayed a conscious disregard for the other skiers on the mountain by skiing recklessly, that his actions were not despicable. Id. at 884. The court’s reasoning that North’s actions were not despicable was based on the evidence that he did not intentionally hit Lackner, in fact he tried to avoid hitting her, but lost control in his attempt and was unable to stop the collision. Id.  at 883. The court states that North’s attempt to avoid hitting Lackner was “entirely inconsistent with evil or criminal intent,” an element needed to prove the conduct was despicable. Id. at 884. 
	A case where the defendant was found to have acted despicably is, Angie M. v. The Super. Crt. of San Diego Co, 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 197 (1995). The plaintiff, Angie, brought suit against her former doctor Robert Hiemstra, for illegal seduction of a minor, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The appellate court overruled the trial court’s demurrer of Angie’s punitive damage claim, because they held the facts of the case warranted sending the punitive damage claim to a jury. The court states that Hiemstra used his position of authority over Angie and his knowledge of her vulnerabilities to manipulate her into a sexual relationship, and his conduct showed “willful and conscious disregard.” Id.  at 204. The court held that Angie alleged enough facts to show Hiemstra’s actions were “outrageous,” as well as recognizing that his conduct violated multiple criminal statutes, which showed that Hiemstra’s actions could be conceived to be despicable by a jury. Id. 
	These cases show that a plaintiff must present evidence that the defendant’s conduct was committed with an evil intent, or was so outside of societies norms that an ordinary person would be disgusted. In the present case, Martin did not act with an “evil or criminal intent,” instead the evidence seems to suggest that Martin’s intent was to finish his dinner before addressing customer issues. In comparing the facts of the D&D case to Lackner, Martin could argue that he was planning on cleaning up the spill after he finished eating, and therefore he did not act despicably. However, if you compare the facts to the American Airlines case, the plaintiff could argue that Martin’s actions were despicable because he was holding his interests above the safety of the customers in his failure to have the spill cleaned. Again, the plaintiff’s argument is made stronger when considered in the context of how many customers had injured themselves from slipping in the store in the months leading up to Palmer’s fall. 