In Hawaii, a plaintiff who seeks exemplary damages against a defendant must show by way of ‘clear and convincing’ evidence that the defendant knowingly acted with reckless indifference to, and disregard for, the rights and interests of another (See Goo v. Continental Casualty Co., 52 Haw. 235, 339, 473 P.2d 563, 566 (l970); Wangen v. Ford Motor Co., 97 Wis. 260, 266-67, 294 N.W.2d 437, 442, 443 (1980)), and Masaki v. General Motors Corporation, S.C. Haw. No. 13023 (1989)), in a manner necessitating a presumption of conscious criminal indifference for civil obligations and [catastrophic] consequences (See Bright v. Quinn, 20 Haw. 512 (1911); Chin Kee v. Kaeleku, 29 Haw. 524, 532-33 (1926); Howell v. Associated Hotels, Ltd., 40 Haw. 492, 499 (l954); and Kang v. Harrington, 59 Haw. at 660-6l, 587 P.2d at 29l (1978)).