If one of the party’s involved in an accident has ignored logical concerns about the safety of others, and has recognized the possible result of his or her unsafe actions, then that same individual could be charged with recklessness, as per personal injury lawyer in Grimsby.
Applicable theories if a defendant has ignored concerns about the safety of others
Intent: That theory suggests that the defendant had exhibited a willfulness to perform certain actions, those that could prove harmful. In other words, defendants that act with intent have a desire to harm others.
Recklessness: That theory indicates that the defendant knew or should have known the possible harmful effects of his or her actions. In other words, the defendant’s conduct has displayed a willingness to take a risk.
Negligence: Defendant’s breach of a duty to care for someone else. That same breach must cause non-intentional harm to another individual.
Strict liability: The defendant’s action has created the basis for a charge of liability.
A charge of recklessness increases the size of the circle of individuals that could be held liable.That widened circle would include government workers. It would also include health care professionals.
2 types of reckless behavior; 2 types of awareness
• What person committing the reckless act was thinking?
• What a reasonable person would have thought, if in the defendant’s position
Essential elements of recklessness
The individual recognizes the fact that his or her actions could result in harm to others.
The individual has chosen to undertake an unreasonable risk by performing a specific action.
The level of risk accepted by the individual exceeds the level of risk that is linked to performance of negligent behavior.
The individual that has chosen to carry out the risky behavior knows that others might be harmed; still, he or she has no intention to harm others.
Has a reporter become the victim of reckless behavior?
An example would be if someone driving a vehicle understood that it could be harmful to drive too close to the side of the road, but he or she did it anyway.That unreasonable risk was not something that could, with certainty, be linked to negligence. Those that viewed the driver’s actions would find it difficult to say that he or she had been merely negligent.
At a specific point, that driver got too close to a reporter that was broadcasting a report, while standing on the sidewalk, but close to the road. Consequently, he or she managed to hit that same reporter. Although the driver had not intended to hurt anyone, he or she had chosen to ignore logical concerns about the safety of others.