Talk:Negligence

message: 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 -  -- ALoan (Talk) 03:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Gare Montparnasse accident

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok, that's fine.--Patrick 11:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: :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)
thread_title: ==

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Elements of Negligence 

message: I am very confused by the discussion of Wagon Mound No. 2 (even after reading
the individual article on that subject, as well as the Wagon Mound No. 1
article): To me, as a layman, it is counter-intuitive that the wharf-owner's
intervention would lead to a reduce liability for the ship-owner. On the
contrary, by doing so he would have removed his own potential a priori
liability (seeing that it was reasonable for him to expect a danger, and he was
assured to the contrary by a supposed specialist), while increasing the
liability of the ship-owner (who could possibly have been unaware of the
potential interaction between oil and wharf-workers, or have assumed that they
would "naturally" take extra care when seeing the oil).
I would strongly suggest that this section is elaborated, so that the
underlying reasoning and principles are more obvious to the layman.
(Note that I do not question the ruling, per se, but the understandability of 
its portrayal.)
88.77.190.163 (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wagon Mound No. 2 confusing 

message: I propose changing the page name to "Law of Negligence" , since the article is about the law of negligence, rather than "carelessness" or " neglect" per se.
I earlier made the change unilaterally on 13th March, but was advised to seek consensus (which I am now doing).
I also edited the lead on 13th March, and this was reverted.  I propose substantially to restore my edit, on the basis of the reasons on my talk page HERE.  Any views? Arrivisto (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a proper procedure for requesting title changes, through Wikipedia:Requested moves. I can tell you, however, that I would be inclined to oppose such a change, as I believe that this title is already at the primary meaning of the term. bd2412 T 13:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In ordinary parlance negligence has a general meaning; in criminal law and the law of tort the word "negligence" has become a term of art.  I feel justified in saying that a title of "Law of Negligence" is more appropriate, given that the article is about the law of negligence! There are already separate WP pages on neglect and carelessness, which I think supports my point.  See Wikipedia:Be bold! Arrivisto (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change of title (with redirect) & proposed edit to lead. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Negligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720045037/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Negligence to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Negligence
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The New Zealand subsection, while well-intentioned, consists of a list of cases with no useful summation of the law, or explanation of how the cases were selected beyond mere mention of negligence. See WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. If there is no plan to develop this subsection into something more useful, I suggest that it be removed. Arllaw (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand Subsection