Also known as: malice or reckless indifference to · malicious or recklessly indifferent · reckless indifference · malice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A culpable mental state consisting of either an intent to cause harm or a conscious disregard of a substantial risk that harm will result to another's protected interests.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Professor Max locked the lab door and wrapped an extension cord around graduate student Preston's neck. Max pulled forcefully for several minutes on the vital area even after Preston went limp. The prolonged targeting of the throat supplied the mental state required for murder liability.
Harbor Crest Fund sued Meridian Advisors after purchasing mortgage-backed securities. The complaint stated only that performance summaries were misleading and incomplete without identifying any specific statement or date. The court required particularity for the circumstances but permitted a general allegation of the mental state.
Apex Mutual used an algorithm that internal emails showed understated repair costs for thousands of policyholders. The company continued the practice while advertising full and fair protection. A jury could award punitive damages based on the company's conscious disregard of insureds' rights.
East Aviation published a quotation attributed to public official Regina that reversed the sense of her safety certification statement. The alteration was deliberate and produced a material falsehood. The change established the required mental state for defamation liability.
Trustee Mustafa Mahmoud sold trust real estate to a related company at below-market value. He knew the sale violated the trust purpose of preserving assets for the beneficiaries. The conduct exposed him to personal liability because it reflected reckless indifference to beneficiary interests.
Max seized the extension cord and applied sustained pressure to Preston's throat for several minutes. The deliberate choice of a deadly weapon directed at a vital area supplied the required mental state. The resulting death constituted murder.
Malice or reckless indifference requires either an intent to kill or a conscious disregard of a substantial risk of death that demonstrates a depraved heart. Negligence involves only a failure to perceive a risk that a reasonable person would have perceived. The higher mental state elevates the offense from manslaughter to murder.
Supporting sources
…the statements were libelous per se, "the law . . . implies legal injury from the bare fact of publication itself," "falsity and malice are presumed," "general damages need not be alleged or proved but are presumed," and "punitive damages may be awarded by the jury even though the amount of actual damages is neither found…
…may be awarded on the classic grounds of common-law malice, that is, " [a]ctual malice
…action more difficult. Moreover, proper procedures will surely eliminate some of the arbitrariness that results, not from malice
…official for criticism of his official conduct absent a showing that the false statements at issue were made with " actual malice
…Concurring opinions Concurring — Justice Kennedy Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from
The circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be pleaded with particularity. The mental state itself may be alleged generally without specific facts showing the defendant's state of mind.
Supporting sources
Outrageous conduct that shows an evil motive or conscious disregard of others' rights supports punitive damages. The trier of fact may consider the character of the act, the harm caused or intended, and the defendant's wealth when setting the amount.
Supporting sources
No. The alteration must produce a material change in the meaning conveyed by the statement. Trivial or non-material changes are insufficient to satisfy the actual malice standard.
Supporting sources
A trustee faces personal liability for a breach committed in bad faith or with reckless indifference to the purposes of the trust or the interests of the beneficiaries. The statute removes any exculpatory provision that would otherwise protect such conduct.
Supporting sources