Talk:Negligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

About the picture, I can't find a good one, but what about a product warning label? An appropriate one would have a clear link to negligence law. Psychobabble

---

Quote form the article:

Note: unless otherwise stated, this article refers to negiligence in United States law.

Well, it shouldn't! -- Tarquin 14:57 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, negligence it´s a worldwide concept.

Added a reference to the Law of Obligations (yes it should be capitalized IMHO) under civil law. Obviously fleshing out the difference between civil and common law is a big project but at least this article is a little less Anglo-American in bias. Alex 17:31 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

I think if this article is to be about both criminal and civil negligence these areas need to be clearly separated from each other as they are completely different areas of law and do not follow the same rules or the same logical analysis. Alex756

The whole law section needs a lot of work. (anon)

Contents 1 Gare Montparnasse accident 2 Redirect 3 Material removed 3.1 == 4 missing important info 5 Principles 6 Elements of Negligence

[edit] Gare Montparnasse accident

I suppose it reasonable to ask: was there any negligence associated with the accident? If so, what is the source; if not, why is the picture on the page?

Sounds like it if this account is accurate - [1] -- ALoan (Talk) 03:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

I can see the possibility a link between "neglect" and a specialised law page: it would be the specific situation of an adult, whether parent or person in loco parentis neglecting a child in his or her care which is a well-documented crime in many jurisdictions. I find myself distinctly puzzled as to why anyone who enters "neglect" would be in the slightest bit interested to read a page on "negligence" which, more often than not, is actually about commission rather than neglect. The nearest and most appropriate page is therefore "child abuse" and I have amended the "neglect" page accordingly. I am even more confused when ":For the neurological condition, see Hemispatial neglect." also appears. What is the rationality of someone who gets to a specialised law page being interested in a non-related specialised medical page? David91 17:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

According to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neglect the word neglect (noun and verb) is much more general than neglect w.r.t. children, and closely related to negligence. --Patrick 22:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I accept that there could be some possible overlap with situations that the law might consider to be negligent in that a failure to do what the reasonable person would do, might be neglect by the reasonable person. Further the Latin roots are the same, neg not legere choose. But as to whether a specialised law page is a better destination for the redirect that child abuse? That is more difficult. Why do we not turn neglect into a dab? That would solve the problem. We could offer fragments of sentences defining neglect and pointing to negligence, child abuse, Hemispatial neglect, and anything else that comes to mind. I will do that. David91 01:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes well i dont reallt know - perhaps it is negligence - perhaps not! does it even matter if we're honest with ourselves??? Seriously - it's in the past and it can do us no more harm (or happiness).

Ok, that's fine.--Patrick 11:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Material removed

Was the defendant the actual cause of injuries sustained by the plaintiff/claimant. A "But-For Test" is generally employed which has three elements: (1) Identify the loss or damage sustained by the plaintiff/claimant; (2) Identify the specific conduct alleged to be the cause of that loss or damage; (3) Demonstrate that the specific loss or damage would not have occurred "but for" the specific conduct of the defendant. Minority test is a substantial certainty (less than 51%) that defendant was the actual cause of the plaintiffs injuries. American jurisdictions use loss of chance in medical malpractice cases, which, rather than asking if there is a 51% chance that defendant was the cause of the injury to the plaintiff, asks if the defendant deprived the plaintiff of chance of recovery from his injuries. This approach prevents doctors from escaping liability in cases where the plaintiff (patient) had a less than 51% chance of recovery before the doctors negligence.

I am attempting the impossible on this page: namely to keep it to principles that are common to all jurisdictions even though that often means a level of generality that is unsatisfying. I have never heard of a minority test and do not really understand it from your description. Further and in any event, it is NPOV because it seems to proceed on the basis that doctors ought not to escape liability. You should expand and redraft in a neutral tone and then place it in a U.S. page (e.g. calculus of negligence or proximate cause. David91 02:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This page should be about general negligence, not just US negligence. --87.74.229.216 12:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==

The article, from the outset contains confusing conflations of terminology and deserves a scholarly rewrite. My recent edit to the subsection on damages removes the assertion that, contrary to definitions in earlier subsections, punitive damages are awarded in negligence claims. The very introduction to the subject of "negligence" is misleading, I comment by --INTERLINEATION--, below

"In the common law, negligence is the basis of most non-intentional torts or wrongs when loss or damage is caused to an individual by the nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance (i.e. a failure to act, an inadvertent action, or an intentional--NO, IN COMMON LAW, INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING GOES BEYOND THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE-- action) of another. In civil law systems--HERE THE WRITER IS APPPARENTLY REFERRING TO STATUTORY CIVIL LAW IN SOME WESTERN NATIONS, AS OPPOSED TO COMMON LAW DECISIONS WRITTEN BY JUDGES DECIDING CIVIL, NOT CRIMINAL, CASES IN OTHER WESTERN NATIONS-- such those found in continental Europe, Quebec, and Puerto Rico, negligence is classified as a form of extra-contractual responsibility, --MAYBE SO, BUT THE CONFUSION ARISES WHERE THE TEXT SUGGESTS THAT COMMON LAW AND CIVIL LAW NEVER COINCIDE. NOT TRUE. IN COMMON LAW JURISDICTIONS, "CIVIL LAW" IS A TERM USED MERELY TO CONTRAST WITH CRIMINAL CASES AND INCLUDES SUITS "AT [COMMON] LAW," OR "IN EQUITY," OR UNDER STATUTORY AUTHORITY--sometimes called a quasi-delict in distinction to the more willful delicts within the conceptual framework of the law of obligations. The detailed rules are not the same as those set out below under the Anglo-American common law."

Yehhbut 16:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The latest addition to this garbled article aggravates rather than elucidates the sloppiness of the whole. It says of the word "negligence":

>>It can be defined as a conduct that falls below the standard established by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.

Since the writer is clearly limiting this "definition" to legal responsibilities rather than the more generic concept of carelessness, this definition is circular. It merely asserts that legal negligence is what the law defines as negligence. Further, the clumsy verbosity is needless. It starts with the dreadfully ambiguous passive voice: "It can be defined as...". Defined by whom? Certainly not the law, which has definitions, but this ain't one of them.

One of the more common legal definitions is "a failure to use that degree of care which an ordinarily careful [prudent] person would have used under the same or similar circumstances.

Yehhbut 14:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] missing important info

An expert should please add this and relevant info in the approriate way and place: Special damages may be awarded for pain and suffering and mental or emotional distress. http://www.legal-info-legale.nb.ca/showpub.asp?id=2&langid=1 --Espoo 10:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's there, under damages. See the tort section damages (general damages) for more info. Psychobabble 11:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Principles

I hope the changes are okay. This can be a good page if it gets a little more schematic and ordered.

It is nothing like a good page. It is a collection of comments. The latest definition I inserted today, but forgot to sign in first. It will necessitate renumbering the "principles" somebody thinks are essential. For the purpose of the lay reader, this article does more to confuse than to elucidate.

[edit] Elements of Negligence

I think cultural differences explain the confusion!

1. Proximity in English law is part of a duty of care, and pops up in psychiatric injury and pure economic loss - it refers to some kind of relationship between parties; but in the U.S., as it seems, it's a byword for what we call remoteness

2. Damage (or better put, harm?) is kind of assumed in English Law - it's the breach of a duty that matters, because there may be no 'damage' as such at all (e.g. breach of a statutory duty, like antitrust/competition laws on tying as a vertical restraint) and we only call something 'harmful' because that's what the law says it is, if you see. If the damage bit must be put back in,

(a) can there be some references to cases on it?

(b) if references are found, can it go underneath duty, breach, causation and remoteness, please? It'll make us happier in England!

3. Is it a good compromise to split the causation bits into factual and legal causation, as I've said?

User:Wikidea

I re-added the section of "Damage" with references and put it "underneath duty, breach, causation and remoteness". It's OK to split the causation into factual and legal causation. --Neo-Jay 13:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)