Cedillos v. Madigan
The clear and convincing requirement effectively put the burden on Cedillos to come up with affirmative evidence of malice. The most Cedillos has shown is the failure to interview Cedillos to get his side of the story. But that failure, as Court have noted was reasonable under the circumstances, and therefore could hardly constitute clear and convincing evidence of malice. Since Cedillos did not carry his burden, we therefore need not dwell on any implications of the fact that Cedillos paid $23,000 to repair the car. The judgment is affirmed.
Comments on Cedillos v. Madigan