dinary prudence in the same situation and with equal experience would not have omitted. ter v. Lumber Co., 129 N. C. '03. 3218: Railroad Co. v. Newman. 36 Ark. 611: “oodman 1‘. Nottingham. 49 N. H. 387. G Am. Rep. 526; Kimball v. Palmer. 80 Fed, 240. 25 C. C. A. 394: Railway Co. v. Brown. 44 Kim. 33-}. 24 Pnc. 497: Railroad Co. v. Pltiskett, 47 Kan, 107. 26 Pac. -101.—Gr-osa negligence. in the law of bailiaent. The want of slight diligence. The want of that care which every man of common sense. bow inattentive scever. hikes of his own property. The omission of that care which even inattentive and thought- lcss men never fail to take of their own prop- erty. Litchfield v. “'hite. 7 N. Y. 441-. 57 Am. Lycoming Ins. Co. v. Barringer. T3 . .... Seybei v. National Currency Bank. 5;! N. Y. 13 Am. Rep. 533; Bannon v. Bal- tnnore & O. H. 00.. 24 Md. 124; Briggs v. Spziuiding. 141 U. S. 132. 11 Sup. Ct. 925, .35 L Ed. 662; Preston v. Prnthor. 137 U. S. 604 11 Sup. Ct. 1&2. 34 L Ed. 788. In the law of torts (and especially with reference to personal injury cases), the term means such ne"ligence as evidences a reckless disre- gard of linman life, or of the safety of poisons exposed to its dangerous effects, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to the rights of others which is equivalent to an intentionai violation of them. McDonald v. Railroad Co. ITex. Civ. App.) 21 S. W. 775: Railroad Co. 1!. Robinson. 4 Bush (Ky.) S09: Railroad Co. V. Borlemer. 13$) lli. 596 29 N. E. (592. 32 Am. St. Rep. 218; Denuian v. Johnston, 8-'3 \lich. 387. 48 N. W. 565: Bailroad Co. v. Orr. 121 Ala. 480, 26 South. 35: Colt 17. West-
- -rn Union Tel. Co., 130 Cal. 657. 63 Pac. 83,
53 L R. A. 678. 80 Am. St. Rep 153.—'H.az- ax-dons negligence. Such careless or reck- icss conduct as exposes one to very great dan- ger of injury or to imminent perii. See Riggs 1'. Standard Oil Co. (C. C.) 130 Fed. 204.- Legal negligence. Negligence per se: the omission of such care as ordinarily prudent persons exercise and deem adequate to the cir- cumstances of the case. In C"tS(-‘S where the common experience of mankind and the common judgment of prudent persons have recognized that to do or omit certain acts is prolific of danger, the doing or omission of them is “legai
nEgll',;'cuCe." Carrico v. Railway t"o.. 35 W. \'a. 389. 14 S. E. 12: Drake v. “'ild, 70 Vt. 5". 3!) At] 2-18; Johnson v. Railway Co.. 49
\vis. 529, 6 N. W. SSH.--Negligence per so. Conduct, whether of action or omission, which nmy he declared and treated as negligence without any argument or proof as to the particular surrounding circumstaiicvs. either becau._se it is in violation of a statute or valid municipni ordinnuce, or because it is so pziipahly opposed to the dictates of common prndenie that it can be said without hesitation or doubt that no A-aretul person would have been guilty of it. See Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Lee. 70 Tex. 496. T S. W. 857: Central R. & B. Co. v. Smith. T."~‘ Ga. 094. 3 S E. S07- Murray v. M url Piic. R. Co., 101 M0. 236, 13 S. W’. 817. 20 .\m. St. Rep. 001: Mose!‘ v. Uuinn Trsetion ('o,. 205 Pa. 481. 55 Atl. l5.—0rd.inax-y negligenee. The omission of that care which a man of common prudence usually takes of his own concerns. Oiiderkirk v. Central Nat.
. 263. 23 l\'. E 8 :-
41 . . 132, 11
. _ 4. 35 L. Ed. GGZ: Lake Shore. etc.. Ry. Co. 1. Murphy. 50 Ohio St. 135. 33 N. E. ~l03.—SlighI: negligence. Sligbt negligence
is not sligzht want of ordinary care contributing to the injury, which would defeat an action for negligence. Slight negligence is defined to be onlv an absence of that degree of care and vigi- lance which persons of extraordinary prudence
NEGOTIABLE and foresight urs accustomed to use. Briggs v. Spauiding. 141 U. S. 132. 11 Sup. Ct. 924.
35 L. Ed. 662; French v. Bufialo, etc.. R. Y. 108; Litchfleid v. White. 7 N. Y, 438. 57 Am. Dec. 534; Griilin v. Vvillow. 43 Wis. 512.—Wa.ntnn negligence. Reck- less indifference to the consequences of an act or omission, where the party acting or failing to act is conscious of his conduct and, without any actual intent to injure. is aware. from his knowledge of existing circumstances and conditions that his conduct will inevitably or probably result in injury to another. Louis- viiie & N. R. Co. v. Webh. 97 Ala. 308. 12 South. 374; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Hall. 105 A13. 590. 17 South. 1T(i.—Wil1ful negligence. Though rejected by some courts and writers as iiivoiving a contradiction of terms. this phrase is occasionally used to describe I higher or more aggravated form of negligence th_an "gross." It then means a willful determination not to perform a known duty, or a rocliiess disregard of the safety or the rights of others, as manifested by the conscious and intentional omission of the care proper under the circumstances. Sec Victor Coal Co. V. Muir. 20 Colo. 320. 38 Pac. 3'78. 26 L R. A. 435. 46 Am. St. Rep. 299; Hoiwerson v. R.eii- way Co.. 157 Mo. 216. 57 S. W’. 0, 5 L R. A. 50: Lockwood v. Railway C0,. 92 Wis. 97, 65 N. W. 8661 Kentucky Cent. R. Co. V. Carr (Ky) 43 S, W. 193. 19 Ky. Law Rep. 1172; Florida Southern Ry. v. Eiirst. 30 Fin. 1, 11 South. ":06. 16 L. R. A. (331, 32 Am. St. Rep. 17; Lexington v s, 10 Bush (KB) 650: Iiiinois Cont. . Co. v. Lciner. 202 11. 624. 67 N. E. 398. 95 Am. . Rep. 266.
NEGLIGENT ESCAPE. An escape from confinement effected by the prisoner without the knowledge or connivance of the Lecper of the prison, but which was made possiliie or practicaliie by the lntter's negligence, or by his omission of such care and vigilance as he was legally bound to exercise in the safe-keeping of the prisoner.
NEGLIGENTIA. Lat. In the Civil law. Carelessness; iuattention; the omission of proper care or forethought. The term is not exactly equivalent to our “negligence." inasmuch as it was not any ncgligontia, but only a high or gross degree of it. that amounted to culpa, (actionable or punishable fault.)
Negligentia. semper habet infortnniiim comjtem. Negligence always has misfortune fnr a companion. Co. Litt. 2-161:; Shep. Touch. 476.
NEGOCE. Fl‘. agenient of affairs.
Business ; trade; man-
NECv0'l‘IA.BILI'l"Y. In mercantile Law Transferable quality. That quality of bills of exchange and promissory notes which renders them transferable from one person to another, and from possesing which they are emphatically termed “negotiable paper." 3 Kent, Comm. 74. 77. 89. et seq. See Story, Bills. § 60.
N]-JGOTIABLE. An instrument embodying an obligation for the payment of money is called “negotiable" when the legal title
to the instrument itself and to the whole