Gross negligence
Encyclopedia
Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness. Negligence
Negligence
Negligence is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.According to Jay M...

 is the opposite of diligence
Diligence
Diligence is steadfast application, assiduousness and industry — the virtue of hard work rather than the sin of careless sloth.Diligent behaviour is indicative of a work ethic — a belief that work is good in itself....

, or being careful. The standard of ordinary negligence is what conduct one expects from the proverbial "reasonable person
Reasonable person
The reasonable person is a legal fiction of the common law that represents an objective standard against which any individual's conduct can be measured...

". By analogy, if somebody has been grossly negligent, that means they have fallen so far below the ordinary standard of care that one can expect, to warrant the label of being "gross".

Criminal law

Gross negligence is, controversially, used as a standard for criminal law for example, under manslaughter in English law
Manslaughter in English law
In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea . In England and Wales, the usual practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option...

.
  • R v. Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171

English law

The concept of gross negligence is broadly distrusted by English law. In Wilson v Brett Baron Rolfe (later Lord Cranworth) said he,
This view has been consistently approved in English law relating to fiduciary duties, as the courts have reasserted that there is only one standard of culpable carelessness: ordinary negligence. The preferred view has been that the context of a trustee, company director or other fiduciary's judgment is to be taken into account when the judge reviews the exercise of discretion. In Houghland v RR Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd Ormerod LJ said,
The leading case is Armitage v Nurse where Millett LJ, was asked to decide whether an exclusion clause was effective to absolve a trustee from an accusation of negligence when applying property to beneficiaries. It was held that exclusion clauses were still effective (though other remedies could follow, such as UCTA 1977 in a contract law case) but on the point of principle, as a default position all trustees are liable for ordinary negligence. Millett LJ said,

Roman law

Roman lawyers had an axiom that gross negligence amounts to an intentional wrong, or culpa lata dolo aequiparatur.
The source of this article is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.
 
x
OK