In Toole v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc. (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 689, the court turned back a challenge to the constitutionality of Civil Code section 3294. The Toole appellant contended that it contained no "standard by which to measure the punishment, nor any limitation as to the amount to be awarded." In Toole the court states: "We find no merit in this contention. A plaintiff's right to exemplary or punitive damages, when the defendant's conduct justifies the award, is generally accepted, and may exist even in the absence of statute. Some authorities have said that the right to such damages is as old as the right to trial by jury. When allowable, the amount to be awarded lies within the sound discretion of the trier of fact . . . . Our statute does no more than recognize the right to punitive damages where the defendant has been found guilty of wrongful conduct showing fraud, oppression or malice. . . . we see no offense to the Constitution, and no deprivation of any constitutional right of appellant in committing the assessment of such damages, including the amount to be allowed, to the sound discretion of the jury." Appellant's petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court in Toole, supra, was denied.