Wilful misconduct: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|negotiation|}}A variation on the similarly ludicrous [[wilful default]] with some common law heritage: | {{a|negotiation|}}A variation on the similarly ludicrous [[wilful default]], but with some common law heritage: | ||
{{cite|Forder|Great Western Railway Co|1905|2KB|532 at 535}}: | {{cite|Forder|Great Western Railway Co|1905|2KB|532 at 535}}: | ||
Revision as of 17:23, 30 June 2021
|
Negotiation Anatomy™
|
A variation on the similarly ludicrous wilful default, but with some common law heritage:
Forder v Great Western Railway Co [1905] 2KB 532 at 535:
“I am quite prepared to adopt, with one slight addition, the definition of wilful misconduct given by Johnson J. in Graham v Belfast and Northern Counties Ry. Co, where he says:
“Wilful misconduct in such a special condition means misconduct to which the will is party as contradistinguished from accident, and is far beyond any negligence, even gross or culpable negligence, and involves that a person wilfully misconducts himself who knows and appreciates that it is wrong conduct on his part in the existing circumstances to do, or to fail or omit to do (as the case may be), a particular thing, and yet intentionally does, or fails or omits to do it, or persists in the act, failure, or omission regardless of consequences.”
The addition which I would suggest is, “or acts with reckless carelessness, not caring what the results of his carelessness may be.”