82,891
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 6: | Line 6: | ||
After all, if you’re negligent, you’re negligent. It is hard to maintain your dignity against the complaint of an innocent, irate and out-of-pocket client by saying you’ve only been a ''bit'' negligent. | After all, if you’re negligent, you’re negligent. It is hard to maintain your dignity against the complaint of an innocent, irate and out-of-pocket client by saying you’ve only been a ''bit'' negligent. | ||
A good way of looking at this is to put it in the language of the laity. Take the time-worn [[indemnity]] for costs, framed in usual legal ''kapusta'': | |||
{{quote|''You will indemnify us on demand for all extraordinary costs we incur in the absence of our [[negligence, fraud or wilful misconduct]].''}} | |||
It is easy enough to add some pepper to this cabbage: | |||
{{quote|''You will indemnify us on demand for all extraordinary costs we incur in the absence of our [[Negligence, fraud or wilful misconduct|'''gross''' negligence, fraud or wilful misconduct.]]''}} | |||
But render this same idea in the elegant prose of those aboard [[Man on the Clapham Omnibus|Clapham omnibus]]: | |||
{{quote|''You must [[reimburse]] us for extraordinary costs we incur, and could not [[reasonably]] avoid, when providing our services to you.''}} | |||
Now it is a bit harder to hide the weasel: not because it is harder to confect the grammar but because it sounds so preposterous when you do: | |||
{{quote|''You must [[reimburse]] us for extraordinary costs we incur, and could not avoid without being reckless, when providing our services to you.''}} | |||
===English law=== | ===English law=== | ||
==== | ====“Gross” versus “casual” negligence==== | ||
Is there anything to be gained, under an English law contract from restricting your liability to losses occasioned by | Is there anything to be gained, under an English law contract from restricting your liability to losses occasioned by '''''gross''''', as opposed to ''ordinary'', casual, everyday, run-of-the-mill [[negligence]]? | ||
It 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 dicta|obiter]]'' — it’s just that it is not entirely clear what: | It 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 dicta|obiter]]'' — it’s just that it is not entirely clear what: | ||