wantonness

a licentious act of one man towards the person of another, without regard to his rights; it has also been defined as the conscious failure by one charged with a duty to exercise due care and diligence to prevent an injury after the discovery of the peril, or under circumstances where he is charged with a knowledge of such peril, and being conscious of the inevitable or probable results of such failure.

Defined by the Supreme Court in Smith v. R Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983).

A reckless or malicious and intentional disregard of the property, righis or safety of others, implying, actively, a licentious or contemptuous willingness to injure and disregard of the consequences to others, and, passively, more than mere negligence, that is, a conscious and intentional disregard of duty. See Brasington v. South Bound R. Co., 62 S. C. 325, 40 S. E. 665, 89 Am. St. Rep. 905; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Webb, 97 Ala. 308, 12 South. 374; Branch v. State, 41 Tex. 625; Harward v. Davenport, 105 Iowa, 592, 75 N. W. 487; Trauerman v. Lippincott, 39 Mo. App. 488; Everett v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 121 N. C. 519, 27 S. E. 991; Birmingham Ry. & El. Co. v. Pinckard, 124 Ala. 372, 26 South. 880. Reckless sport; wilfully unrestrained action, running immoderately into excess. Cobb v. Bennett, 75 Pa. 330, 15 Am. Rep. 752. A licentious act by one man towards the person of another, without regardN to his rights; as, for example, if a man should attempt to pull off another's hat against his will, in order to expose him to ridicule, the offense would be an assault, and if he touched him it would amount to a battery. Bou-vier.