negligence
Enable an agent to recognise a potential failure of reasonable care, record the grounds and uncertainty of that assessment, and identify appropriate preventive, investigative or referral actions.
Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled
5 bundles · 9 layers · 16 findings · 24 questions
Meaning and care benchmark Establishes which interpretation of negligence is being applied and how reasonable prudence is specified.
Interpretations of negligence
Records ordinary, professional and legal uses without collapsing them into one definition.
Attributed negligence meaning
Record the adopted meaning, who endorses it and whether it describes deficient conduct or a fuller basis of responsibility.
- Does negligence here mean a failure of reasonable care, a legally actionable wrong, or another explicitly defined concept? definition
- Which source or authority supports that meaning, and which competing interpretation could change the assessment? provenance
Reasonable care comparator
Specifies the expected care and the circumstances relevant to selecting a comparator.
Justified care expectation
Record the proposed reasonable-person or role-specific benchmark and the grounds for treating it as applicable.
- What would a reasonably prudent actor in the relevant role and circumstances have done differently? definition
- How does the chosen framework treat customary practice, written rules, expertise and emergency conditions when defining reasonable care? boundary
Conduct, risk and opportunity Reconstructs the actor's conduct and decision situation before the outcome was known.
Acts and omissions
Identifies the behaviour under assessment and the basis for expecting the actor to intervene.
Specified care opportunity
Record what the actor did or failed to do, when intervention was possible and why that intervention was expected.
- Which specific act or omitted precaution is alleged to fall below reasonable care, and during what interval? definition
- For an omission, what relationship, undertaking, responsibility or other applicable ground made action expected? boundary
Foreseeability and feasible precautions
Examines prospective risk and the practical opportunity to reduce it.
Prospective precaution assessment
Record foreseeable risks, available precautions and relevant constraints using information available at the time.
- What evidence shows the risk's likelihood and severity were known or reasonably discoverable before the conduct? measurement
- Which precautions were feasible then, and how would their expected risk reduction, burdens and competing responsibilities be assessed? action
Care shortfall and evidence Connects the care benchmark to observed conduct and tests the strength of the resulting assessment.
Departure from care
Makes the alleged gap between expected and actual conduct explicit.
Supported care gap
Record the particular departure, its supporting evidence and any framework-specific treatment of its seriousness.
- Which observed facts demonstrate a gap between the applicable benchmark and the actor's conduct? measurement
- Does the framework distinguish ordinary negligence from gross negligence or recklessness, and what additional evidence would support that distinction? boundary
Evidential challenges
Tests evidence quality, hindsight effects and explanations consistent with reasonable care.
Contested negligence assessment
Record evidence against the allegation, gaps in reconstruction and the status of any determination.
- Which contemporaneous records support or challenge the allegation, and which claims rely on retrospective recollection? provenance
- Could the outcome have occurred despite reasonable care, and what evidence distinguishes that explanation from the alleged care failure? boundary
Harm, responsibility and response Separates the care assessment from causal attribution, formal liability and practical intervention.
Causation and liability boundaries
Tracks connections to harm and the additional requirements of the selected responsibility framework.
Separate responsibility tests
Record harm, causal explanations and any applicable liability requirements without treating a care shortfall as sufficient by itself.
- What supports the claim that the omitted or inadequate precaution contributed to the specified harm, and what alternative causes remain? measurement
- Which additional requirements, limitations or defences must the applicable framework resolve before assigning liability? boundary
Prevention and authorised review
Connects uncertainty and ongoing exposure to proportionate action and competent assessment.
Response under uncertainty
Record immediate precautions, evidence-preservation needs and who is authorised to make consequential determinations.
- What proportionate action can reduce a continuing risk while the negligence allegation remains unresolved? action
- What evidence should be preserved, and which competent reviewer should assess disputed care, causation or responsibility? action
Evidence and external alignment What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.
Reported evidence
Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.
Check these first
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these check these first hold for the sense of negligence this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Kinds and varieties
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of negligence this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Standards and regulation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of negligence this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Real-world use
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of negligence this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Typical measurements
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of negligence this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Failure modes and hazards
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of negligence this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Regional variation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of negligence this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of negligence this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Classifiers Filled
- Family
- Thing Registry
- Category
- Activities and processes
- Entry kind
- noun.act
- Plane
- ACT
- Domain
- ACT.ACT
- Facets: substance
- activity
- Facets: origin
- conceptual
- Facets: agency
- inert
- Facets: mobility
- not-applicable
- Facets: scale
- not-applicable
- Facets: affordances
- observable
- Other names and narrower kinds
- dereliction, nonfeasance, carelessness, neglect, nonperformance, comparative negligence, concurrent negligence, contributory negligence, criminal negligence, culpable negligence, neglect of duty, evasion
What it is Filled
Negligence is conduct, by act or omission, that falls below the care a reasonably prudent person would exercise in the circumstances, with legal liability ordinarily requiring additional elements such as duty, causation, and legally recognised harm.
In scope
- Acts and omissions alleged to fall below reasonable care in specified circumstances
- Competing interpretations of reasonable prudence and their institutional or disciplinary provenance
- Risks, knowledge, capabilities and precautions available when the conduct occurred
- Evidence supporting or challenging an assessment of deficient care
- Relationships between a care shortfall, resulting harm and framework-specific responsibility
Out of scope
- Intentional wrongdoing and its independent grounds of responsibility
- Strict liability that does not depend on a failure of care
- Complete models of injuries, losses and their valuation
- Complete procedural models of litigation, adjudication and enforcement
- Professional practice standards except where they inform an applicable care benchmark
Why it exists Filled
Enable an agent to recognise a potential failure of reasonable care, record the grounds and uncertainty of that assessment, and identify appropriate preventive, investigative or referral actions.
Distinguishing features Filled
- Identify a specific act or omission and a defensible care benchmark; an adverse outcome alone does not establish negligence.
- Assess what was reasonably knowable and practicable at the time, rather than treating later knowledge as available beforehand.
- Distinguish falling below reasonable care from deliberately causing harm; record intent separately rather than inferring it from the outcome.
- For an omission, establish why action was reasonably expected of this actor in these circumstances.
- Distinguish a care shortfall from a legally actionable claim, whose additional requirements depend on the governing framework.
What robots and AI may and may not do Filled
Must not
- Declare that a named person or organization was negligent unless a court or competent body has found so.
- Present general information as legal advice on a person's claim or defence.
- Alter, delete or withhold records that bear on whether care was taken.
- Apply one jurisdiction's standard of care to another.
Only with a human decision
- Filing or settling a negligence claim.
- Reporting a colleague's or professional's suspected negligence to a regulator.
May
- Explain negligence and its elements in a named jurisdiction, citing law and cases.
- Record facts about an incident accurately for the people responsible for assessing it.
Moral aspects Filled
- Negligence law decides who bears the cost of harm; errors fall on injured people or on those wrongly blamed.
- Fear of liability can drive defensive practice, while impunity leaves victims without remedy.
Who is affected
- People harmed by careless conduct
- People accused of negligence
- Insurers and employers
Owners Filled
Steward
Nobody owns the concept; courts and legislatures define it in each jurisdiction.
Links to other meta-models Filled
parent
- oewn-00067036-n - registry parent class
What else AI and robots need to interact with it Filled
Identity and identifiers required Filled
- Vercy registry: vr.tr.negligence
- Open English WordNet: oewn-00740568-n
Direct properties not applicable Not applicable
- Assessment framework: Ordinary prudence, professional practice, organisational safety, civil law, criminal law, or another explicitly identified framework
- Conduct under assessment: Act, omission, or combined course of conduct, with actor and time interval
- Applicable care benchmark: Connection to an attributed standard, comparator, practice or reasoned interpretation
- Contemporaneous risk knowledge: Known, reasonably discoverable, disputed, not reasonably discoverable, or unresolved, for each specified risk
- Opportunity to take care: Available, constrained, unavailable, disputed, or unresolved, with the relevant time, authority and resources
- Departure from reasonable care: Alleged, supported, contested, not supported, or unresolved, with reasons
- Connection to harm: Specified conduct linked to specified harm through a proposed causal account and alternative explanations
- Assessment authority: Connection to the assessor, their remit, the evidence considered and any authoritative determination
Plane ACT: no invented physical properties.
Recognition not applicable Not applicable
Not applicable
Negligence is an assessment of conduct against an applicable duty and standard of care, so appearance alone cannot establish it.
Capabilities and actions required Filled
- Compare a specified act or omission with explicitly attributed care benchmarks.
- Reconstruct the information, risks and feasible precautions available before the outcome.
- Identify missing evidence and competing explanations for an apparent care shortfall.
- Separate care, causation and liability questions for appropriate review.
- Recommend proportionate precautions or escalation while preserving unresolved responsibility.
Hazards and failure modes required Filled
- Unchecked carelessness in workplaces, medicine or transport causes injury and death.
- Wrongful findings of negligence can end careers and reputations.
Standards and interfaces required Filled
- The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, governs occupiers' duties of care to lawful visitors in England and Wales.
- The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, provides for reducing damages when a claimant's own fault contributes to the damage within its scope.
Context of use required Filled
- Potential negligence is assessed after accidents, service failures or omissions where a person or organization may have failed to exercise reasonable care.
- The concept supports incident investigation, prevention and legal assessment by connecting expected care with conduct, causation and harm.
Sources Filled
- Open English WordNet 2024, synset oewn-00740568-n - sense and gloss of the concept
- Wiktionary: negligence - word senses and usage
Open questions
- Which reference works best distinguish negligence as ordinary imprudence from its professional, civil and criminal meanings?
- How do relevant frameworks specify the reasonable-person comparator and accommodate expertise, individual capacities and emergency circumstances?
- Which operational methods assess foreseeable risk and precaution feasibility reliably without importing hindsight or unsupported numerical precision?
- Where do relevant frameworks draw the boundaries between negligence, gross negligence, recklessness and unavoidable error?
- How should distributed organisational failures be represented when individual control and responsibility are contested?
Machine files
Provenance
thing registry research (pass 2) · unreviewed
Built from: models/things/publications/thing-negligence/spec.json