Gross negligence: Difference between revisions

Gross negligence (view source)

Revision as of 15:54, 29 April 2016

209 bytes added , 29 April 2016

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+For a detailed essay on the related question "why would one ''use'' negligence in a legal contract at all?" see the article about "[[contractual negligence]]". (for a short answer to that question try this: ''one shouldn't'').
 Is there anything to be gained, under an English law contract, from insisting your liability be restricted to losses occasioned by your '''''gross''''' negligence?
@@ Line 5: / Line 7: @@
 :''“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.
+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 is one then bothering to make an argument about this in the first place? After all, if you’re negligent, you're negligent. It is hard to maintain your dignity defending yourself against the complaints of an innocent, irate and out-of-pocket client by saying you’ve only been a ''bit'' negligent.
-What case law there is suggest that, since both terms do get used in English law contracts, there must be some distinction - which from the declarers of the common law, is quite a piece of tail wagging dog work if you ask me.
+What case law there is suggests that, since both terms do get used in English law contracts, there must be some distinction - which from the declarers of the common law, is quite a piece of tail wagging dog work if you ask me.
 The important factors in distinguishing between plain negligence and gross negligence appear to be: