gross negligence

Suspicion of defect of title or the knowledge or circumstances which would excite such suspicion in the mind of a prudent man, or gross negligence on the part of the taker, at the time of the transfer, will not defeat his title. That result can be produced only by bad faith on his part.

The omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take of their own property. Jones, Bailm. The want of slight diligence. 103 111. 523. Lata culpa, or, as the Roman lawyers most accurately called it, dolo proxima, is, in practice, considered as equivalent to dolus, or fraud itself. It must not be confounded, however, with fraud; for it may exist consistently with good faith and honesty of intention, according to common-law authorities.

The omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take of their own property. Jones, Bailm.; Neal v. GUlett, 23 Conn. 437; 3 Hurlst & 0. 337. Such as evidences wilfulness; such a gross want of care and regard for the right of others as to justify the presumption of wilfulness or wantonnesa 2 Thomp. Neg. 1264, S 52; such as implies a disregard of consequences or a willingness to inflict injury. Deering, Neg. § 29; Lake Shore & M. S. By. Co. V. Bodemer, 139 111. 696, 29 N. E. 692, 32 Am. St. Rep. 218. Lata culpa, or, as the Roman lawyers most accurately called it, dole proximo, is, in practice, considered as equivalent to dolus, or fraud itself. It must not be confounded, however, with fraud; for it may exist consistently with good faith and honesty of intention, according to common-law authorities; 32 Vt 652; Shearm. & Red. Neg. § 3; Webb, Poll. Torts 538, n. The distinction between degrees of negligence is not very sharply drawn in the later cases. See Bailment; Negligence. The Intentional failure to perform a manifest duty, in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another; a thoughtless disregard of consequences without the exertion of any effort to avoid them. Mc Donald v. Ry. Co. (Tex.) 21 S. W. 776; Schindler v. Ry. Co., 87 Mich. 400, 49 N. W. 670. It has been held to have no legal signiflcance which imports other than a want of due care; Stringer v. R, Co., 99 Ala. 397, 13 South. 80.

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.

Defined under Negligence in Black's Law Dictionary.

Inthe law of bailment. The want of slight diligence. The want of that care which every man of cars which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take of their own property.