Gross negligence: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
''Gross'' negligence, therefore, exists only in the transplanted soil of contract: a place with no need for inferred duties of care ''at all''. SO we are already in a fairly weird place, which is why so many legal eagles are confused about it.
''Gross'' negligence, therefore, exists only in the transplanted soil of contract: a place with no need for inferred duties of care ''at all''. SO we are already in a fairly weird place, which is why so many legal eagles are confused about it.


''For an essay on the related question “why would one ''use'' negligence in a [[contract]] at all?” see the article about “[[contractual negligence]]”. For a short answer to that question try this: Unless one has an [[indemnity]], '''one shouldn’t'''.''`
''For an essay on the related question “why would one ''use'' negligence in a [[contract]] at all?” see the article about “[[contractual negligence]]”. For a short answer to that question try this: Unless one has an [[indemnity]], '''one shouldn’t'''.''


For a short one, try this:
For a short one, try this:
 
===Why gross negligence commits a category error===
In broad terms, common law liability arises between two parties when one breaches its express or implied duties to the other.
In broad terms, common law liability arises between two parties when one breaches its express or implied duties to the other.