I’m not a lawyer, but the Wikipedia part I quoted gives me the impression that, in US law or maybe the specific state this case was in, “fraud” is legally defined “depriving somebody of any money or property”.
Again assuming Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence#Procedure_in_the_Un...) has this right, negligence requires injury (“The United States generally recognizes four elements to a negligence action: duty, breach, proximate causation and injury. A plaintiff who makes a negligence claim must prove all four elements of negligence in order to win his or her case”
“Injury” may have a wider meaning in US law than elsewhere, though. Wikipedia gives me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_injury, which says “Personal injury is a legal term for an injury to the body, mind or emotions, as opposed to an injury to property”, so properties can be injured, too, and https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1646 sort-of shows that’s a synonym for “property damage”.
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.
Well, get back to me when negligence is punished like fraud, since the impact on the victim can be just as drastic regardless of tortfeasor's intent or lack of same.
Strictly speaking, negligence has its own 4-part test (duty, breach, causation, damages). Fraud (intentional misrepresentation made to be relied on by another to their detriment) without intent (or reliance) is simply an unactionable misrepresentation.
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?
Negligence that leads to bodily harm, ya; but negligence that leads to monetary losses is probably a civil rather than criminal matter. It depends on the jurisdiction for sure, some developing world countries might see it as criminal.
To clarify... in the US, the property owner can be held liable for injury that results _from the property owner's negligence, etc._ even if the injured person was trespassing or committing a crime.
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.
Again assuming Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence#Procedure_in_the_Un...) has this right, negligence requires injury (“The United States generally recognizes four elements to a negligence action: duty, breach, proximate causation and injury. A plaintiff who makes a negligence claim must prove all four elements of negligence in order to win his or her case”
“Injury” may have a wider meaning in US law than elsewhere, though. Wikipedia gives me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_injury, which says “Personal injury is a legal term for an injury to the body, mind or emotions, as opposed to an injury to property”, so properties can be injured, too, and https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1646 sort-of shows that’s a synonym for “property damage”.
reply