it. Brown.—-Negative condition. One hy which it is stipulated that a given thing shali not happen.—Negative pregnant. In pleading. A negative implying also an ailinnative. Cowel_l. Such a form of negative expression as may imply or carry within it an atlirmntive. Steph l. 18; Fields v. State. 134 Ind. 46. 32 N. E 80: Stone v. Qnaal. 36 Minn. 46, 29 N. W. 326. As if a man be said to have aliened land in fee, and he says he has not aligned in fee, this is a negative pregnant; for, though it be true that he has not alicncd in fee, yet it may be that he has made an estate in tail. Cowell.
As to ne atire "Covenant," “Easement,” “servitude? "Statute." and “Testlmony.” see those titles.
NEGLECT. Omission; failure to do something that one is bound to do: care- lessness.
The term is used in the law of hnllment as synonymous with “negligence.” But the latter word is the closer translation or the Latin “ncgligmLtto."
As used in respect to the payment of money. refusal is the failure to pay money when demanded: neglect is the failure to pay money which the party is bound to pay without demand. Kimball v. Rowland. 6 Gray (Mass) 2%.
The term means to omit, as to neglect busi- ness or payment or duty or work, and is generally used in this sense. It does not generally imply carelessness or imprndence, but si.mply an omission to do or perform some “'0 . or act. Rosenplaenter v. Roessle, 54 . . —Culpnl:le neglect. In this phrase, the word "culpable" means not crimlnai, but censurahle; and, when the term 12 applied to the omission by a person to preserve the means of enforcing his own rights. censurable is more nearly an equimlont. As he has mereiv lost a right of action which he mlgzhi; voluntarily relinquish. and Inns n-rnnned nuhodv but himself, culpable neglect conveys the idea of neglect which exists nvherra the loss can fairly be ascribed to the pa rt_v’s onn . rralessness. impl‘0\ idence, or folly. Bank v, “'1i=_ht. S Allen (Mass) 121; Bennett v. Bennett. 93 V». 241. 44 At]. 894-- Willful neglect. “'illful neglect is the neglect of the husband to provide for his wife the common necessaries of life. he having the ability to do so: or it is the failure to do so by reason of idleness. profligacy, or dissipation. Civil Code Cal. 5 105.
NEGIJGENCE. The omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordina 'ly reg- ulate the conduct of human altairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It must be determined in all cases by reference to the situation and lsuowledgc of the partles and all the attendant circumstances. Nitro- Glycerln Case, 15 Wall. 536. 21 L. Ed. 206; Blythe 1' Birmingham Waterworks Co.. 11 Exch 784.
Negligence, in its ('i\'ii relation, is such an inadvertent imperfection, by a responsible human agent. in the discharge of a legal duty, as immediately produces. In an ordinary and natural sequence, a damage to another. Whart. Neg. § 3.
It is conceded by all the authorities tbs the standard by which to determine wherh er a person has been guilty or negligence the conduct of the prudent or careful or diligent man. Bigelow, Torts, 261.
The failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person. that degree care. precaution, and vigilanca which the ' cumstances justly demand, whereby such o person suffers injury. Cooley. Torts, 630.
The faiiure to do what a reasonable and pro- dent _person wouid ordinarily have done an er the circumstances of the situation, or the d what such a person under the existing cite stances would not have done. Baltimore - €66 Co. v Jones, 95 U. S. 441. % L. Dd.
The opposite of rare and prudence: the omission to use the means reasonably necessary to avoid injury to others. Great Western lt. Co. V. llaworth. 39 Ill. 353.
Negligence or carelessness signifies want of care. caution, attention, diligence, or discretion in one having no positive intention to in- jure the person complaining thereof. The words "rsclsless." "indifferent," 'careless." and "wanton” are never understood to signify positive will or intention, unless when joined wrtb o - or words which show that they are to rec re an artificial or unusual, if not an unnatural. interpretation. Lexington v. Iewis, 10 Bush (I§y.) 677. _
Negliaence is any culpable omission of a positive duty. It differs from hecdiessnc in that hoedlessness is the doing of an act in riolntion of a negative duty, without adverting to its possible consequences. In both cases there is inadvcrtence, and there is breacb of dun. Aust. Jur. § 630.
—-Actionable negligence. See ACTIONABLI. —-Collateral negligence. In the law relating to the responsibility of an employer 0: principal for the negligent acts or «mi
of his employé, the term "collateral" genre is sometimes used to describe negligence attributable to a contractor employed by the principal and for which the inner is not responsible, though he would be responsible for the some thing if done by his servant. “'ehrr v Railway Co.. 2 App, Div, 292. 47 N. Y. Supp. 11.—Comnnrntlve negligence. See COMPABAT!VE.—CnntrlI7utox'y negligence. Contributory negligence, when set up as a defense to an action for injuries alleged to have hnen caused by the defendant's negligenu. moans any want of ordinary care on the port of the person in'ured. (or on the part of an- other whose no: igence is imputable to him.) which combined and concurred with the defendant's negligence, and contributed to tlr injury as a proximate cause thereof, and as an element without which the injury “unit! not have occurred. Railroad Co. v. Young. 153 Ind. 163, 54 N. E. 791; Dell v. Gian Co.. 1G9 Pa, 549, 32 All. 601; Railroad Co.. 52 hi . Plant In .
a0 . C. A. 6.. ht Co.. 160 Ky. I73. 37 S. W’. . 4 L R. A. 812: Ri- ley v. Railway Co., 27 W. Va. 1fi—i.—Grim.ina1 negligence. Negligence of such a character. or occurring under such circumstances, as to be punishable ns a crime by statute; or (at common law) such a flagrant and reckless dis- regard of the safety of others, or wilful indifference to the injury liable to follow, as to convert an act otherwise lawful into a crime when it results in personal injury or death. 4 Bl. Comm. 192. note; Cook v. Railroad Co.. 72 Ga. 48: Rankin v. Transportation Co.. 73 Ga. 229. 54 Am. Rep. 874: Railroad Co. v. Chollette, 33 \Pb, 143. 49 N. W. 1114—C\1l— pnhle negligence. Failure to exercise that
degree of (are rendered appropriate by the particular circumstances, and which a man of or-