Explain this to me like I'm a second-grader

I'm not an attorney -- I'll defer to those who frequent here if they'd like to chime in -- but I'm pretty sure if the standard is "gross negligence," then what a "reasonable" person "should have known" is indeed something that must be considered.


Another quick Google search -- as noted, I am not an attorney and just did a search for "negligence," "reasonable" and "should have known," so all the lawyers out there can correct me if necessary.

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)
1221. Negligence—Basic Standard of Care

A [designer/manufacturer/supplier/installer/repairer] is negligent if [he/ she/it] fails to use the amount of care in [designing/ manufacturing/inspecting/installing/repairing] the product that a reasonably careful [designer/manufacturer/supplier/installer/ repairer] would use in similar circumstances to avoid exposing others to a foreseeable risk of harm.

In determining whether [name of defendant] used reasonable care, you should balance what [name of defendant] knew or should have known about the likelihood and severity of potential harm from the product against the burden of taking safety measures to reduce or avoid the harm.



Pearson Education Companion Website
Law in Action Study Guide
Negligence and Unintentional Torts
Summary

What happens to people who are injured through no fault of their own: a woman who breaks her arm because a faulty binding on her ski comes off during a downhill race or a child who suffers brain damage after being prescribed the wrong medication?
People usually assume they will be able to sue and get compensation for their injuries, loss of wages, or damage to their property. Damage to property or a personal injury caused by another person is a civil wrong called a tort. If the injury or damage was unintentional, then the wrong is called an unintentional tort.
Negligence
The most common kind of unintentional tort is negligence. You are negligent if you unintentionally cause injury to someone in a situation where you should have known your action could cause harm.
In order for a defendant to be found negligent, the plaintiff must prove three factors.
First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. A duty of care is the obligation to avoid careless actions that could cause harm to one or more persons. Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant failed to provide the proper standard of care that a reasonable person would have provided in a similar situation.




These are from NYU Law School (BTW, the bold in this case is not mine)

o Social host liability,McGuiggan v. New England Tel - regulation of personal relationships in social settings may be detrimental on the whole; social host liability limited to reasonably known/should have known about risk of injury.


2. Licensee – Owed some duty of care; enters land with (express/implied) consent, but not to landlord’s obvious benefit; landowner has duty to warn only if knows/should know about danger.

 

And I think "reasonable person" is some sort of legal concept as well.

 

I'm not a lawyer either, but your first two citations (California Civil Instructions and the Pearson Education Companion Website) have to do with civil law, not criminal law. Civil law is lawsuits filed because a plaintiff feels they have been harmed in some way by the defendant. Criminal law is when an actual crime is committed. O.J. Simpson, for instance, faced both a criminal trial for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman (in which he was acquitted), and then a civil trial, in which their families sued him and won millions (whether he has paid or not is another matter).

The third citation also seems to be for civil law, not criminal law, dealing with landlords, or people who are hosting things such as parties. I'm not looking them up, so someone else can correct me if I'm wrong.

There are different legal standards to civil law and criminal law.

 

Chaffetz came off as a flaming asshole.

We really appreciate your Google skills. Impressive.

 

All not enough to derail a presidential election.
I think that Comey's thought process was similar to how justice Roberts ruled on obama care

 

Thank you. It's a gift.

 

There is no hopeful picture with Hillary. Biggest and worst liar ever to run for president.

 

Makes you kind of wonder who took "prosecution for blatantly violating laws" off the table. Seems that came from "above" Comey.

 

Make sure Hillary keeps stressing that to the voters.

 

Maybe if we're lucky the stupid old bitch will stroke out the same day THE PIG overdoses on coke and keels over of a heart attack while sitting on the toilet jacking off to pics of Ivanka.

 

You are aware she was the SECRETARY OF STATE, aren't you?