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, so
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.
