Everyone recognizes it denotes a greater degree of culpability than ordinary negligence
, but how much greater?
Gross negligence merely differs in degree from ordinary negligence
In response to the FDIC's complaint, the named defendants filed a motion to dismiss claiming that North Carolina law does not allow ordinary negligence
claims against D&Os, and, regardless, that the BJR shields D&Os from such claims.
Like the Second Circuit, ordinary negligence
is a sufficiently culpable state of mind for imposition of an adverse inference jury instruction in the First, (109) Third, (110) Sixth, (111) Tenth, (112) and D.
240) But the government would only need to prove ordinary negligence
to trigger criminal restitution (albeit under a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard as opposed to a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard).
The Nabozny case is one of the first in Illinois to hold that an ordinary negligence
standard would chill participation in a contact sport because rule infractions inevitably occur.
In arguing that the application of ordinary negligence
principles led to the recognition of a duty of care and to liability, the judges relied on significant factual features linking the parties.
The seriousness of the harm risked by ordinary negligence
is good reason to hold actors to strict standards of conduct.
Perhaps an underlying belief in the merits of this exception tilted the Alaska Supreme Court towards the ordinary negligence
standard: (119) the court might have sought to limit the applicability of the statute's criminal punishments as constitutional if the provision assigning jail terms was enforced only against participants in heavily regulated industries.
16400 defines a breach of trust as a violation of any fiduciary duty and can be separated into three types: ordinary negligence
, gross negligence (recklessness) and intentional (willful) breach of trust.
In the largest personal-injury verdict ever awarded in Arkansas, a jury awarded compensatory damages of $5 million for ordinary negligence
and $10 million for medical malpractice, and $63 million in punitive damages.
75) However, Defendant claimed that Plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie case and furthermore, that the utility could be liable for ordinary negligence
under the current rate schedule approved by the Public Service Commission.