Negligence

The omission to do semething which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It must be determined in all cases by reference to the situation and knowledge of the parties and all the attendant circumstances. NitroGlycerin Case, 15 Wall. 536, 21 L. Ed. 206; Blythe v. Birmingham Waterworks Co., 11 Exch. 784. Negligence, in its civil relation, is such an inadvertent imperfection, by a responsible human agent, in the dlscharge of a legal duty, as immediately produces, in an ordinary and natural sequence, a damage to another. Whart. Neg. § 3. It is conceded by all the authorities that the standard by which to determine whether a person has been guilty of negligence is the conduct of the prudent or careful or diligent man. Bigelow, Torte, 261. The failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. Co.oley, Torts, 630. The failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person would ordinarily have done under the circumstances of the situation, or the doing what such a person under the existing circumstances would not have done. Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Jones, 95 U. S. 441, 24 L. Ed. 506. The opposite of care and prudence; the omission to use the means reasonably necessary to avoid injury to others Great Western R. Co. v. Haworth, 39 111. 353. Negligence or carelessness signifies want of care, caution, attention, diligence, or discretion in one having no positive intention to injure the person complaining thereof. The words "reckless," "indifferent," "careless," and "wanton" are never understood to signify positive will or intention, unless when joined with other words which show that they are to receive an artificial or unusual, if not an unnatural, interpretation. Lexington v. Lewis, 10 Bush (Ky.) 077. Negligence is any culpable omission of a positive duty. It differs from heedlessness, in that heedlessness is the doing of an act in violation of a negative duty, without adverting to its possible consequences. In both cases there is inadvertence, and there is breach of duty. Aust. Jur. § 630.

— Actionable negligence. See Actionable.

— Collateral negligence. In the law relating to the responsibility of an employer or principal for the negligent acts or omissions of his employe, the term "collateral" negligence is sometimes used to describe negligence attributable to a contractor employed by the principal and for which the latter is not responsible, though he would be responsible for the same thing if done by his servant. Weber v. Railway Co.., 20 App. Div. 292, 47 N. Y. Supp. 11.

— Comparative negligence. See Comparative.

— Contributory negligence. Contributory negligence, when set up as a defense to an action for injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligence, means any want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured, (or on the part of another whose negligence is imputable to him,) which combined and concurred with the defendant's negligence, and contributed to the injury as a proximate cause thereof, and as an element without which the injury would not have occurred. Railroad Co., v. Young, 153 Ind. 163, 54 N E. 791; Deli v. Glass Co., 169 Pa. 549, 32 Atl. 6Ol; Barton v. Railroad Co., 52 Mo. 253, 14 Am. Rep. 418; Plant Inv. Co v. Cook, 74 Fed. 503, 20 C. C. A. 625; McLaughlin v. Electric Light Co... 100 Ky. 173, 37 S. W. 851, 34 L. R. A. 812; Riley v. Railway Co.., 27 W. Va. 164,

— Criminal negligence. Negligence of such a character, or occurring under such circumstances, as to be punishable as a crime by statute; or (at common law) such a flagrant and reckless disregard of the safety of others, or wilful indifference to the injury liable to follow, as to convert an act otherwise lawful into a crime when it results in personal injury or death. 4 Bl. Comm. 192, note; Co.ok v. Railroad Co.., 72 Ga. 48; Rankin v. Transportation Co., 73 Ga. 229, 54 Am. Rep. 874; Railroad Co. v. Chollette, 33 Neb. 143, 49 N. W. 1114,

— Culpable negligence. Failure to exercise that degree of care rendered appropriate by the particular circumstances, and which a man of ordinary prudence in the same situation and with equni experience would not have omitted. Carter v. Lumbar Co., 129 N. C. 203, 39 S. El 828; Railroad Co., v. Newman, 36 Ark. 611; Woodman v. Nottingham, 49 N. H. 387, 6 Am. Rep. 526; Kimball v. Palmer, 80 Fed. 240, 25 C. C. A. 394; Railway Co. v. Brown, 44 Kan. 384, 24 Pac. 497 ; Railroad Co. v. Plaskett. 47 Kan. 107, 26 Pac. 401,

— Gross negligence. In the law of bailment. The want of slight diligence. The want of that care which every man of common sense, how inattentive soever, takes of his own property. The omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never full to -take of their own property. Litchfield v. White, 7 N. Y. 442, 57 Am. Dec. 534; Lycoming Ins. Co. v. Barringer, 73 III. 235; Seybel v. National Currency Bank. 54 N. Y. 299, 13 Am. Rep. 583; Bannon v. Baltimore & O. R. Co... 24 Md. 124; Briggs v. Spaniding, 141 U. S. 132, 11 Sup. Ct. 925, 35 L. Eld. 662; Preston v. Prather, 137 U. S. 604, 11 Sup. Ct 162, 34 In Ed. 788. In the law of torts (and especially with reference to personal injury cases), the term means such negligence as evidences a reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to the rights of others which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them. McDonald v. Railroad Co.. (Tex. Civ. App.) 21 S. W. 775; Railroad Co., v. Robinson. 4 Bush (Ky.) 509; Railroad Co., v. Bodemer, 139 111. 596, 29 N. E. 692, 32 Am. St. Rep. 218; Denman v. Johnston, 85 Mich. 387, 48 N. W. 565; Rnilroad Co. v. Orr, 121 A.a. 489, 26 South. 35 ; Coit v. Western Union Tel. Co., 130 Cal. 657, 63 Pac. 83, 53 L. R. A. 678, 80 Am. St. Rep. 153.

— Hazardous negligence. Such careless or reckless conduct as exposes one to very great danger of injury or to imminent peril. See Riggs v. Standard Oil Co.. (C. Ct) l3b Fed. 204

— Legal negligence. Negligence per se; the omission of such care as ordinarily prudent persons exercise and deem adequate to the circumstances of the case. In cases where the common experience of mankind and the common judgment of prudent persons have recognized that to do or omit certain acts is prolific of danger, the doing or omission of them is "legal negligence." Carrico v. Railway Co., 35 W. Va. 389, 14 S. E. 12; Drake v. Wild, 70 Vt. 52. 39 Atl. 248; Johnson v. Railway Co.., 49 Wis. 529, 6 N. W. 886,

— Negligence per se. Conduct, whether of action or omission, which may be declared and treated as negligence without any argument or proof as to the particular surrounding circumstances, either because it is in violation of a statute or valid municipal ordinance, or because it is so palpably opposed to the dictates of common prudence that it can be snid without hesitation or doubt that no careful person would have been guilty of it. See Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Lee, 70 Tex. 496. 7 S. W. 857; Central It& B. Co. v. Smith, 78 Ga. 694, 3 S E. 397; Murray v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 101 Mo. 236, 13 S. W. 817, 20 Am. St. Rep. 601; Moser v. Union Traction Co., 205 Pa. 48l, 55 Atl. 15,

— Ordinary negligence. The omission of that care which a man of common prudence usually takes of his own concerns. Ouderkirk v. Central Nat. Bank, 119 N. Y. 263. 23 N. E. 875; Scott v. Depeyster, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 543; Tyler v Nelson, 109 Mich 37. 66 N. W. 671; Ton-cray v. Dodge County, 33 Neb. 802, 51 N. W. 235; Briggs v. Spaulding, 14i U. S. 132, ll Sup. Ot. 924, 35 In Ed. 662; Lake Shore, etc.. By. Co., v. Murphy, 50 Ohio St. 135, 33 N. E. 403.

— Slight negligence. Slight negligence is not slight want of ordinary care contributing to the injury, which would defeat an action for negligence. Slight negligence is defined to be only an absence of that degree of care and vigilance which persons of extraordinary prudence and foresight are accustomed to use. Briggs. v. Spaulding, 141 U. S. 132, 11 Sup. Ct. 92A, 35 It. Bid. 662; French v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co., 48 N. Y. 108; Litchfield v. White, 7 N. Y. 488, 57 Am. Dec. 534; Griffin v. Willow, 43 Wis. 512.

— Wanton negligence. Reckless indifference to the consequences of an act or omission, where the party acting or failing to act is conscious of his conduct and, without any actual intent to injure, la aware, from his knowledge of existing circumstances and conditions, that his conduct will inevitably or probably result in injury to another. Louisville & N. R. Co., v. Webb, 97 Ain. 308, 12 South. 374; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Hall, 105 Ala. 599, 17 South. 176.

— Willful negligence. Though rejected by some couris and writers as involving a contradiction of terms, this phrase is occasionally used to describe a higher or more aggravated form of negligence than "gross." It then means a willful determination not to perform a known duty, or a reckless disregard of the safety or the rights of others, as manifested by the conscious and intentional omission of the care proper under the circumstances. See Victor Co.ai Co. v. Muir, 20 Colo. 320, 38 Pac. 378, 26 In R. A. 435, 46 Am. St. Rep. 299 ; Holwerson v. Railway Co.., 157 Mo. 216, 57 S. W. 770, 50 L. R. A. 850; Lockwood v. Rnilway Co.., 92 Wis. 97, 65 N. W. 866; Kentucky Cant. R. Co., v. Carr '(Ky.) 43 S. W. 193, 19 Ky. Law Rep-1172; Florida Southern Ry. v. Hirst, 30 Fla-1, 11 South. 506, 16 L. R. A. 631, 32 Am. St. Rep. 17; Lexington v. Lewis, 10 Bush (Ely.) 680; Illinois Cant. R. Co., v. Leiner, 202 III. 624, 67 N. E. 398. 95 Am. St. Rep. 266.