Gross negligence: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Is there anything to be gained, under an English law contract, from insisting your liability be restricted to losses occasioned by your '''''gross''''' negligence? | Is there anything to be gained, under an English law contract, from insisting your liability be restricted to losses occasioned by your '''''gross''''' negligence? | ||
This correspondent is of the view that that is hard to sustain in the face of stout objection. | This correspondent is of the view that that is hard to sustain in the face of stout objection. On one hand, these days, {{tag|Gross negligence}} ''does'' seem to mean something at English law – ''obiter'' - but it is not entirely clear what: | ||
:''“Certainly the last time this issue came before the Court of Appeal they decided that the debate about its meaning was a “somewhat sterile and semantic one”'' <small>([http://www.linklaters.com/Publications/Publication1403Newsletter/TMT_Newsletter_March_2011/Pages/08_UK_When_Does_Negligence_Become_Gross_Negligence.aspx Linklaters publication])</small> | :''“Certainly the last time this issue came before the Court of Appeal they decided that the debate about its meaning was a “somewhat sterile and semantic one”'' <small>([http://www.linklaters.com/Publications/Publication1403Newsletter/TMT_Newsletter_March_2011/Pages/08_UK_When_Does_Negligence_Become_Gross_Negligence.aspx Linklaters publication])</small> | ||
When negotiating {{tag|documentation}} the tack one gets obliged to take is “look, if we muck up we’re not going to stand on ceremony here, so don’t worry about the legal docs” – which isn’t the most edifying position for a lawyer to take, implying as it does that you may as well not have a legal document at all. And it does beg the question why one is bothering to make an argument about this in the first place. After all if you’re negligent, you're negligent. It isn’t a great look to try to defend yourself the claims of against an innocent, irate and out-of-pocket client on the basis you’ve only been a ''bit'' negligent so shouldn't have to compensate. | |||
====See also==== | ====See also==== | ||
*[[Commercial reasonableness]] | *[[Commercial reasonableness]] | ||
{{c|Litigation}} | |||
Revision as of 15:06, 14 January 2015
Is there anything to be gained, under an English law contract, from insisting your liability be restricted to losses occasioned by your gross negligence?
This correspondent is of the view that that is hard to sustain in the face of stout objection. On one hand, these days, Gross negligence does seem to mean something at English law – obiter - but it is not entirely clear what:
- “Certainly the last time this issue came before the Court of Appeal they decided that the debate about its meaning was a “somewhat sterile and semantic one” (Linklaters publication)
When negotiating documentation the tack one gets obliged to take is “look, if we muck up we’re not going to stand on ceremony here, so don’t worry about the legal docs” – which isn’t the most edifying position for a lawyer to take, implying as it does that you may as well not have a legal document at all. And it does beg the question why one is bothering to make an argument about this in the first place. After all if you’re negligent, you're negligent. It isn’t a great look to try to defend yourself the claims of against an innocent, irate and out-of-pocket client on the basis you’ve only been a bit negligent so shouldn't have to compensate.