l. Introduction The law frequently employs a concept of "negligence. What does the concept mea This question can be explored from many perspectives. One perspective analyzes different ways of articulating the content of the standard-as a cost- benefit balance, or a judgment about "community values, or a version of the Golden Rule. Another, related perspective considers the normative foundations of a negligence requirement-as a utilitarian metric of personal fault, as an economic rule designed to induce optimal precautions, as a norm of fairness, or as a type of fault subject to retributive blame or to a corrective justice duty of repaIr. In this essay, I take a somewhat different perspective. What specific conceptions of negligence are recognized in the law? How do these conceptions relate to one another? And why does the law employ these varying conceptions? To illustrate some of the distinctions i have in mind consider the g propositions (A) Alon, through his dangerous driving, negligently creates an unreasonable risk of physical injury to Virgi (B) Boris, through his dangerous driving, negligently causes physical injury to (c) Claude negligently fails to foresee the risk of physical injury to virgil (D) David negligently drives his car (E) Edna, a surgeon, performs an operation during which her hand slips, negligently causing physical injury to Virgil For some thoughts on these issues, see Kenneth W. Simons, Negligence, 16 Soc. Phil 62(1999):Kenneth W. Simons, The Hand Formula in the Draft Restatement (Third)of Torts: Encompassing Fairness As Well as Efficiency Values, 54 Vand. L. Rev 901(2001) Simons, Dimensions of Negligence 8/7/02I. Introduction The law frequently employs a concept of “negligence.” What does the concept mean? This question can be explored from many perspectives. One perspective analyzes different ways of articulating the content of the standard—as a cost￾benefit balance, or a judgment about “community values,” or a version of the Golden Rule. Another, related perspective considers the normative foundations of a negligence requirement—as a utilitarian metric of personal fault, as an economic rule designed to induce optimal precautions, as a norm of fairness, or as a type of fault subject to retributive blame or to a corrective justice duty of repair.1 In this essay, I take a somewhat different perspective. What specific conceptions of negligence are recognized in the law? How do these conceptions relate to one another? And why does the law employ these varying conceptions? To illustrate some of the distinctions I have in mind, consider the following propositions: (A) Alon, through his dangerous driving, negligently creates an unreasonable risk of physical injury to Virgil. (B) Boris, through his dangerous driving, negligently causes physical injury to Virgil. (C) Claude negligently fails to foresee the risk of physical injury to Virgil. (D) David negligently drives his car. (E) Edna, a surgeon, performs an operation during which her hand slips, negligently causing physical injury to Virgil. 1 For some thoughts on these issues, see Kenneth W. Simons, Negligence, 16 Soc. Phil. & Pol. 52 (1999); Kenneth W. Simons, The Hand Formula in the Draft Restatement (Third) of Torts: Encompassing Fairness As Well as Efficiency Values, 54 Vand. L. Rev. 901 (2001). Page 2 of 57 Simons, Dimensions of Negligence 8/7/02