I tend to take the role of devils advocate, not by choice usually, but hey it helps raise debate.
What I'm saying is they were an idiot by any standard but that they might not have been going for you individually.
Fortunately in US law, malice and being motivated by personal vendetta would only factor into sentencing of a crime.
The guilty verdict comes about when something like this is met (I am listing the complete law as written so that nothing is omitted:
55-10-205. Reckless driving.
(a) Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property commits reckless driving.
(b) A person commits an offense of reckless driving who drives a motorcycle with the front tire raised off the ground in willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property on any public street, highway, alley, parking lot, or driveway, or on the premises of any shopping center, trailer park, apartment house complex, or any other premises that are generally frequented by the public at large; provided, that the offense of reckless driving for driving a motorcycle with the front tire raised off the ground shall not be applicable to persons riding in a parade, at a speed not to exceed thirty miles per hour (30 mph), if the person is eighteen (18) years of age or older.
(c)
(1) Any motor vehicle operator who knowingly ignores a clearly visible and adequate flood warning sign or barricade and drives into a road area that is actually flooded commits reckless driving. In addition to the penalties imposed pursuant to subsection (d), the court may order the operator to pay restitution to defray the taxpayer cost of any rescue efforts related to such violation.
(2) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section, which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, that the operator's driving through the flood warning sign or barricade was necessitated by a bona fide emergency.
(3) This subsection (c) shall not apply to an emergency vehicle. "Emergency vehicle" means a vehicle of a governmental department or public service corporation when responding to any emergency, or any vehicle of a police or fire department, or any ambulance.
(d)
(1) A violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor.
(2) In addition to the penalty authorized by subdivision (d)(1), the court shall assess a fine of fifty dollars ($50.00) to be collected as provided in § 55-10-412(b) and distributed as provided in § 55-10-412(c).
Nothing in there about proving malice or personal grudges. This is from Tennessee Code Annotated but I am sure the commonwealth of Kentucky has similar laws.
Then if the defendant wished to plead they were not in complete control of the vehicle, they might get around the willful but not the following because they would have admitted guilt if they said they were not in control...
55-8-136. Drivers to exercise due care.
(a) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this chapter, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway, and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway.
(b) Notwithstanding any speed limit or zone in effect at the time, or right-of-way rules that may be applicable, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care by operating the vehicle at a safe speed, by maintaining a safe lookout, by keeping the vehicle under proper control and by devoting full time and attention to operating the vehicle, under the existing circumstances as necessary in order to be able to see and to avoid endangering life, limb or property and to see and avoid colliding with any other vehicle or person, or any road sign, guard rail or any fixed object either legally using or legally parked or legally placed, upon any roadway, within or beside the roadway right-of-way including, but not limited to, any adjacent sidewalk, bicycle lane, shoulder or berm.
(c) A violation of this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
Finally, based on my personal experience is that an officer may be inclined to charge a subject with more than one infraction even if they overlap a little. So you could also see improper lane change and maybe a couple of others...