Inception Of Recklessness: The Malicious Damage Act Of 1861

Different crimes require different degrees of intent. A person may be considered to be reckless when a person does not intend to cause harm but brings about some form of harm by virtue of having taken an unjustifiable risk. Sometimes such person's conduct is so reckless that it becomes the basis for a lawsuit or criminal prosecution. If a person acts with such utter disregard for the safety of others -- and knows (or should know) that such actions may cause harm to someone else – that person may be liable for injuries caused by his recklessness.

Inception of Recklessness

The term reckless was first created to deal with, (which is now rather an archaic term malicious used to be prevalent in many statutes in the nineteenth century, such as the Malicious Damage Act of 1861. One of the first cases to use the term reckless, was that of R v Pembliton (1874) , in which the defendant was charged with the offence of

There are two types of reckless behavior. The first looks at what the actor knew or is believed to have been thinking when the act occurred called the subjective test. The second considers what a reasonable person would have thought in the defendant's position called the objective test. In both situations, the issue turns on conscious awareness, or whether the person knew or should have known his actions may cause harm to another.

Many state laws prohibit many reckless behaviors and look upon reckless actors as social dangers because they gamble with other people's safety. A person who has been injured from a civil claim of recklessness of another may recover compensation for any resulting medical expenses, lost wages, rehabilitation, pain, and suffering. In addition, recklessness may also allow recovery from certain people who are typically immune from liability for mere negligence, such as government workers and health care