Dimensions of Negligence in Criminal and Tort Law Kenneth W. Simons September 10, 2001 ntroduction lL. The standard tort conception of negligence: unreasonably risky conduct 4 Ill. The modern criminal law conception of negligence: unreasonable inadvertence and unreasonable mistake V. Comparing the standard tort and modern criminal law conceptions 10 v. A more complete picture of negligence in tort and criminal law 14 A. When criminal law employs a conduct conception of negligence B. When tort law employs a cognitive conception of negligence C. Other varieties of negligence VI. Distinct legal functions of the negligence concept A. Express the legal norm in the form of a standard rather than a rule B. Personify fault C. Empower the trier of fact to give content to the legal standard D. Create a secondary legal norm parasitic on a primary legal norm E. Distinguish grades of fault VIL. Conclusion M.L. Sykes Scholar and Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law. Prepared for the Cegla Law Instute for Comparative and Private International Law, Conference on Negligence in the Law, June 2001. Copyright@ 2001. All rights reserved. I thank Yisha Blank, Greg Keating, Gerald Leonard, Michael Moore, Ariel Porat, and Paul Robinson, as well as other participants at the conference, for their helpful suggestions. Gaston de los Reyes provided excellent research assistance as well as editorial adviceDimensions of Negligence in Criminal and Tort Law by Kenneth W. Simons* September 10, 2001 I. Introduction ...............................................................................................................2 II. The standard tort conception of negligence: unreasonably risky conduct .................4 III. The modern criminal law conception of negligence: unreasonable inadvertence and unreasonable mistake.......................................................................................................6 IV. Comparing the standard tort and modern criminal law conceptions........................10 V. A more complete picture of negligence in tort and criminal law...............................14 A. When criminal law employs a conduct conception of negligence....................14 B. When tort law employs a cognitive conception of negligence .........................19 C. Other varieties of negligence...........................................................................22 VI. Distinct legal functions of the negligence concept...................................................27 A. Express the legal norm in the form of a standard rather than a rule ...............28 B. Personify fault..................................................................................................33 C. Empower the trier of fact to give content to the legal standard .......................39 D. Create a secondary legal norm parasitic on a primary legal norm ..................41 E. Distinguish grades of fault ...............................................................................46 VII. Conclusion...............................................................................................................54 * M.L. Sykes Scholar and Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law. Prepared for the Cegla Law Instute for Comparative and Private International Law, Conference on Negligence in the Law, June 2001. Copyright © 2001. All rights reserved. I thank Yishai Blank, Greg Keating, Gerald Leonard, Michael Moore, Ariel Porat, and Paul Robinson, as well as other participants at the conference, for their helpful suggestions. Gaston de los Reyes provided excellent research assistance as well as editorial advice