What is the test for substantial evidence in a civil case?

Their argument fails because the major premise is inaccurate. The fundamental problem with defendants' contention is that it requires a misapplication of the "substantial evidence" rule to sustain it. In reviewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court " 'must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the respondent and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' [Citations.]" (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738.) " 'The test on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the trier of fact, not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt....' ... Evidence, to be 'substantial' must be 'of ponderable legal significance ... reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.' [Citations.]" (Ibid.) A review of the record discloses substantial evidence of malicious conduct on the part of both defendants.