82,903
edits
Gross negligence: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
*Failing to comply with a duty of care by a significant margin. | *Failing to comply with a duty of care by a significant margin. | ||
Note in particular the seriousness of the risk or loss which eventuates. Put it this way, if your negligence results in a £10,000,000 loss, it is going to be a curious court indeed which concludes this was a mere trifling matter, and the right outcome is for the innocent party to bear the loss. | Note in particular the seriousness of the risk or loss which eventuates. Put it this way, if your negligence results in a £10,000,000 loss, it is going to be a curious court indeed which concludes this was a mere trifling matter, and the right outcome is for the innocent party to bear the loss. This outcome might be different in the [[US attorney|American]] courts (see below), but that only compounds one’s suspicions about the silliness of U.S. legal system to which a significant part of this blog is devoted. | ||
Wouldn’t you say? | Wouldn’t you say? | ||
===New York law=== | |||
Gross negligence is a thing across the ditch. No argument about that. And it is apparently sheeted directly the wantonness of the error, rather than (as seems to be the case in English law) the upshot of the carelessness. It requires something more like recklessness than carelessness. | |||
That this is a thing — and even that it is [[market standard]] — is no grounds for yielding to a [[US attorney]] who insists on foisting it on you. | |||