At the very best it's gross negligence on a scale never before seen.
When does gross negligence become fraud? Does it require intent? Do they need to show intent? Basically show he knew what he was doing even though he plays dumb?
You can consider whatever you want to be gross negligence. The legal system, on the other hand, would look to things like the exact circumstances, the reasons things were done as they were, and whether and to what degree the relevant actions deviated from relevant rules, regulations, and standard practices in similar situations.
And unless you have all of that information, you can't possibly make that judgement.
Fair enough. I guess this is why I should get a lawyer involved! I was assuming there was some distinction between accidental negligence and fraud as far as what could be protected against.
Not really, I don't think. That's basically the idea behind deniability - you kinda sort know about something, but you kinda sort make sure you never actually know about it.
Gross negligence is often more along the lines of "we are 99.999% sure you are lying, but we can't prove it".
"Gross negligence" means you really really should have known of the risk. But it's still a contradiction to say that someone was deliberately grossly negligent.
Theranos had a duty of care to the patients and they very blatantly breached that duty.
Both fraud and negligence are torts, but they are completely different in how they are applied. Fraud deals with purely financial loss, while negligence deals with harm which is much wider in scope.
reply