Also known as: recklessly disregard · reckless disregards
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
Conduct showing conscious indifference to a known, serious risk of harm to another. The actor perceives the high probability of injury yet proceeds without regard for the safety of the person exposed to that risk. This mental state is more culpable than ordinary negligence and affects the availability of defenses such as contributory negligence.
Conduct showing conscious indifference to a known, serious risk of harm to another. The actor perceives the high probability of injury yet proceeds without regard for the safety of the person exposed to that risk. This mental state is more culpable than ordinary negligence and affects the availability of defenses such as contributory negligence.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Publication of a false and defamatory statement with serious doubts about its truth. The publisher must have entertained those doubts subjectively rather than merely failing to investigate as a reasonable person would. This standard forms one component of actual malice required for public-official and public-figure plaintiffs.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Publication of a false and defamatory statement with serious doubts about its truth. The publisher must have entertained those doubts subjectively rather than merely failing to investigate as a reasonable person would. This standard forms one component of actual malice required for public-official and public-figure plaintiffs.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Malik, an experienced ironworker, deliberately unclips his safety harness to save time on a high beam. Sofia, the supervisor, knows the harness rule yet orders a crane load swung directly overhead to meet a deadline. When the load strikes Malik and he falls, Sofia's reckless disregard for Malik's safety prevents her from asserting his own recklessness as a bar to recovery.
A delivery driver speeds through a school zone while texting, knowing children are present. A pedestrian steps into the crosswalk without looking. The driver's reckless disregard for pedestrian safety is a factor the jury may weigh when deciding whether the conduct bears a sufficient causal relation to the resulting injury.
A plaintiff's reckless disregard for his own safety does not bar recovery when the defendant also acted with reckless disregard for the plaintiff's safety. Ordinary contributory negligence does not bar recovery against a reckless defendant, and mutual recklessness likewise does not trigger a bar.
Supporting sources
Reckless disregard involves conscious indifference to a known, high-probability risk of serious harm. Ordinary negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care without that conscious awareness of the grave danger.
Supporting sources
A prominent business leader sues a magazine after an article accuses him of insider trading. The reporter relied on an unverified tip and never checked public filings that would have shown the trades were lawful. Because the leader is a public figure, he must prove the magazine published with reckless disregard for the truth to recover.
An attorney running for district attorney publicly claims that the incumbent judge routinely accepts bribes from defense counsel. The attorney bases the charge on a single anonymous email and makes no effort to verify court records. The statement violates professional conduct rules because it was made with reckless disregard for its truth.
A newspaper publishes an editorial accusing a city council member of steering contracts to a relative. The editorial writer had read an internal memo showing the relative was not awarded the contract yet published anyway. The council member, a public official, can recover by showing the publication was made with reckless disregard of the truth.
A police chief sues a television station for reporting that he fabricated evidence in a high-profile case. The station aired the story after a single anonymous call and without reviewing arrest logs that contradicted the claim. The chief must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the broadcast was made with reckless disregard for the truth.
A public figure must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published the false statement with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This actual-malice standard protects robust public debate while allowing recovery when the publisher entertained serious doubts.
Supporting sources
Yes. Reckless disregard in the defamation context exists only when the publisher in fact entertained serious doubts about the truth. Mere failure to investigate as a reasonable person would is insufficient without subjective awareness of probable falsity.
Supporting sources
…conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "actual malice"that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. An oft-cited statement of a like rule, which has been adopted by a number of state courts, is found in the Kansas case of Coleman v. MacLennan, 78 Kan. 711,…