This view has always been confirmed in English law with respect to fiduciary duties, with the courts having held that there is only one standard of culpable negligence: ordinary negligence. The preferred view was that the context of the judgment of a trustee, corporate director or other trustee should be taken into account when considering the exercise of judicial discretion. In Houghland v RR Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd[8], Ormerod LJ stated: “slight negligence” and “gross negligence” often appear in discussions of legal issues. Many people do not understand that there is a difference between the two terms. Negligence is the failure to apply the level of care and prudence that an ordinary person would use in similar circumstances. It is often a negligent mistake or inattention that causes an injury. The concept of gross negligence is largely suspicious in English law. In Wilson v Brett [6], Baron Rolfe (later Lord Cranworth) stated that gross negligence is considered more damaging than ordinary negligence because it involves reckless disregard for consequences and failure to use even minor care to avoid harming someone else`s life or property. Therefore, a person held liable for gross negligence may be liable for greater damage than ordinary negligence. Indifference and flagrant violation of a legal obligation regarding the rights of others. Since we will be talking about civil negligence, it is important to understand the difference between civil negligence and criminal negligence. Gross negligence is a type of negligence that affects the defendant`s state of mind. Gross negligence occurs when a defendant shows negligent disregard for the safety of the plaintiff.
Reckless contempt is more than just a temporary miscarriage of justice. This implies a conscious indifference to the well-being of another person. It would be very surprising if our law drew the line between liability for slight negligence and liability for gross negligence. In this respect, English law differs from civil law systems because it has always made a clear distinction between negligence, however gross, on the one hand, and fraud, bad faith and wilful misconduct on the other. The common law doctrine is as follows: “Gross negligence may be evidence of bad faith, but is not the same”: see Goodman v. Harvey (1836) 4 A. & E. 870, 876, after Lord Denman C.J. But while we consider the difference between fraud on the one hand and simple negligence, however gross, on the other hand as a difference in nature, we consider the difference between negligence and gross negligence only as a difference in degree.
English lawyers have always had a healthy lack of respect for the latter distinction. In Hinton v Dibbin (1842) 2 Q.B. 646, Lord Denman C.J. doubted that there was an understandable distinction; in Grill v. General Iron Screw Collier Co. (1866), R.S. 1 P.C. 600, 612, Willes J.
noted that gross negligence is ordinary negligence with an abusive epithet. But civilian systems draw the line elsewhere. The doctrine is culpa lata dolo aequiparatur; and although the maxim itself is not Roman, the principle is classical. There is no room for the maxim at common law; it is not mentioned in Broom`s Legal Maxims, 10th edition (1939). While most car accidents involve ordinary negligence such as reckless driving, an injury accident caused by a drunk driver can in some cases be considered gross negligence depending on the circumstances. Gross negligence is a lack of care that shows reckless disregard for the safety or life of others, so great that it appears to be a deliberate violation of the safety rights of others. Gross negligence is an increased degree of negligence that represents an extreme departure from the standard of care. In the relationship between intent to commit unlawful harm and ordinary negligence, gross negligence is defined as intentional, gratuitous and reckless conduct that affects life or property or any other. Roman lawyers had an axiom that gross negligence amounts to intentional injustice or culpa lata dolo aequiparatur. [10] Gross negligence is “lack of light care or diligence” or “a deliberate and intentional act or omission in negligent disregard of a legal duty and consequences to another party.” [1] In some jurisdictions, a person who was injured through gross negligence may be able to claim punitive damages from the person who caused the breach or loss.
[2] Now that we have defined what negligence is, it will be easier to understand the difference between ordinary negligence and gross negligence. As mentioned earlier, negligence results from a party failing to provide reasonable care to someone and therefore performing a reckless act that results in damages and losses for another party. Car wrecks, work-related injuries, illegal deaths, medical malpractice, even criminal charges can be considered negligence, but what is the difference between civil negligence and criminal negligence? Read this article to discover the main differences between negligence and gross negligence when it comes to personal injury law. If you have been injured in an accident and believe that your injuries were caused by reckless or negligent actions of another person, you should speak to a lawyer as soon as possible. A personal injury lawyer can review the facts of the accident and explain whether it was negligence or gross negligence. Although it is possible to pursue a civil action yourself, this is not recommended. By hiring a personal injury lawyer who has successfully handled many bodily injuries, you can more easily rely on your case to be in experienced hands. Gross negligence is extreme indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others. Gross negligence is more than just negligence or inaction.