Gross negligence as an exclusionary term in contracts An exclusionary term in a contract operates to exclude, or limit, a party’s liability in specific circumstances. So courts from two states have given a different meaning to the term gross negligence. The case is helpful in that the Court recognised that undefined 'gross negligence' terminology in commercial contracts can and should be given effect to provide business efficacy to the agreed terms. Courts in many jurisdictions have held that advance releases of liability in cases of gross negligence are unenforceable as against public policy. On Oct. 12, 2017, Ms. Lansky sued Protection One for this loss – alleging breach of contract, negligence (including gross negligence), and detrimental reliance. Clearly more than mere negligence is involved when a person is grossly negligent. At common law, the term “negligence” generally describes a party’s failure to fulfil its duty of care owed to another party, to the standard of care legally required. Incidentally, this post served to remind me why I love what I do: even after a dozen years of writing about contract language, I still encounter meaty topics that I haven’t written about. Fifth, make it clear that whatever one or more labels you use, they relate to causation of damages. Fourth, don’t use the word willful. Legal contracts are tricky therefore one has to be careful while drafting and reviewing the language in a lease. Some courts have defined gross negligence as a departure from even slight negligence, and others have, in my opinion been a bit clearer, calling gross negligence wonton, reckless, and willful conduct reasonably expected to injure another.” Negligence vs. 57A Am. The concepts of negligence and gross negligence. Gross misconduct is deemed to be conduct so serious so as to justify the summary dismissal of an employee. Therefore, in civil tortious proceedings, the traditional view is that there is no distinction between negligence and “gross negligence” and the prefix “gross” is superfluous. How do these recommendations play out in practice? The intention is to be determined by construing the clause according to its natural and ordinary meaning and giving due weight to the context in which the clause appears, including the nature and object of the contract. According to Hellespont Ardent, this would occur where the risks of damage are high and obvious, such that failure to avert the damage goes beyond a mere failure to take reasonable care. Negligence is the deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the particular circumstances. Today, I would like to discuss on “Negligence” vs “Gross Negligence” in a Lease. Negligence is the failure to act in a way with prudence or reasonable care under the specific circumstances. If anyone else has written in detail about use of the terms negligence and gross negligence in contracts, please let me know. Although the view is that there is no difference between negligence and gross negligence in tort law, the concept of gross negligence is developing outside the law of torts. It’s a safe bet that it needs further work. Taking into account the caselaw more generally, gross negligence “is a nebulous term that is defined in a multitude of ways, depending on the legal context and the jurisdiction.” 57A Am. "Gross negligence" can arise in a number of other non-criminal circumstances, and is defined (and discussed) here. Given this state of affairs, it’s not surprising that many jurisdictions, among them Pennsylvania, don’t recognize degrees of negligence. The concept is more fundamental than failure to exercise proper care but that additional dimension can only be determined by context. In this recent post I considered whether there’s any point in providing in a contract a definition of the term gross negligence. If a reference to gross negligence is included it is likely that the courts will impose a higher burden of proof on the Owner to show negligence. Accusations of breach of contract or professional negligence can result in lawsuits. The High Court found that in the context of the contract in question “gross negligence” meant “a degree of negligence where whatever duty of care may be involved has not been met by a significant margin”. This provides parties with certainty at least as to what the standard will be and it allows them to adopt a more or less rigorous standard than developed by the courts or under statute. It is also likely that where well-resourced commercial parties use these words in an exclusion clause, an Australian court will provide an objective interpretation according to traditional rules of contractual construction. This may just amount to ordinary negligence. In Massachusetts, “gross negligence is substantially and appreciably higher in magnitude than ordinary negligence. In negotiating contracts, a Contractor will be unlikely to agree to a liability clause that does not limit its liability for negligence but may, however, agree to be liable for “gross negligence”. 2d Negligence § 231, § 232. Acme decides that some aspect of its contract with Widgetco no longer makes business sense, so it elects not to perform. See, e.g., City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 161 P.3d 1095 (Cal. Negligence is caused by the failure to use reasonable care and comes in various degrees. It co-stars reckless, wanton, and willful misconduct. An exclusionary term in a contract operates to exclude, or limit, a party’s liability in specific circumstances. A skiing instructor gives ski poles to his student without checking them. And eighth, consider not using tort-based standards in a contract in connection performance under that contract. View on Google Maps, info@clarendonlawyers.com.au Such a carve-out would make more sense in the case of, for example, indemnification of Widgetco for losses relating to Acme’s relations with nonparties. Third, if you want to use a term for misconduct that goes beyond negligence, use recklessness, or the adjective reckless, or the adverb recklessly, instead of gross negligence and its variants. As a small business owner, you may have come across “contract negligence” and found it confusing. Posted on September 10, 2012 by Ken Adams. Where commercial parties use the term ‘gross negligence’, this will be interpreted according to normal rules of construction and given a meaning according to the context of the contract in question. It is an act or omission respecting legal duty of an aggravated character as distinguished from a mere failure to exercise ordinary care. Gross Negligence. Second, unless you’re in a position to research the tort law of each governing law in contracts that you draft and negotiate, it would be safer not to use the term gross negligence, as its meaning changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The fact that a person’s conduct might have involved a gross departure from the standard of care required is not relevant. Contract negligence combines language from two separate legal concepts: breach of contract and professional negligence.. It often involves a careless mistake or inattention that causes an injury. By Tony Symons, Millie Clayton and Zara Treacy, Clarendon LawyersLevel 2955 Collins StreetMelbourne, Victoria 3000 The parties should be aware that the meaning of the term ‘gross negligence’ is unclear. First, provisions featuring gross negligence or featuring both negligence and gross negligence can be used as a sword—as a basis for terminating a contract, as grounds for being indemnified by the other party, or to circumvent a waiver of liability or … The terms negligence and gross negligence appear frequently in contracts. “Gross negligence” is not a term with a precise meaning; and its meaning is to be ascertained from the context in which it is used. Gross negligence as an exclusionary term in contracts. Under Australian law, exclusion clauses included in a contract will be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning. Should a contract include protections from “gross negligence”? And in this other recent post I considered the adjective wanton. Ordinary Negligence vs. In general usage, negligence means “carelessness.” But it’s likely that any court interpreting a contract provision that uses the term negligence will treat it as referring to the tort of negligence, which is grounded in, to use the Black’s Law Dictionary definition, “The failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation.”. If it’s the law of a jurisdiction that doesn’t recognize concepts used in the U.S., don’t insist on incorporating those concepts in the contract. parties. 2007) (California); Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp., 79 N.Y.2d 540 (N.Y. 1992) (New York). It is negligence that is substantially greater than ordinary negligence. 2d Negligence § 219. 2d Negligence § 227 (2012). In particular, if a cap on indemnification contains a carve-out for recklessness or intentional misconduct and the indemnification covers Widgetco for Acme’s failure to comply with obligations under the contract, the carve-out could end up vitiating the limit on indemnification. However, parties are reluctant, or unable, to define the terms in those contracts and they are left to the courts to grapple with. Once a negligent breach is established, the defendant is liable whether the negligent conduct was seriously, slightly, or to any other degree, negligent. Gross negligence as an exclusionary term in contracts An exclusionary term in a contract operates to exclude, or limit, a party’s liability in specific circumstances. Confusing matters still further is the notion that “wanton usually denotes a greater degree of culpability than recklessness.” Garner’s Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, at 936. It means … recklessness. It’s possible to act intentionally without intending to cause damages. It seems that according to current Australian law, gross negligence applies to conduct that causes damage on a level of liability somewhere between ordinary negligence (where the risks were reasonably foreseeable) and recklessness (where the risks are consciously acknowledged). Negligence is the failure to use the level of care and caution that an ordinary person would use in similar circumstances. While the meaning of the term in other jurisdictions may guide the court as to the meaning of the term “gross negligence”, ultimately it will be a matter of objectively assessing what the parties intended when they included the term as a result of their negotiation. Including gross negligence in the contract Where the parties are to use gross negligence in their contract, for example as an exclusion to a limitation of liability clause, the following points should be noted: The parties should be aware that the meaning of the term "gross negligence" is unclear. It is materially more want of care than constitutes simple inadvertence. Jur. This paper analyses the terms ‘gross negligence’ and ‘wilful misconduct’ which continue to be used regularly as carve-outs from exclusion or limitation clauses in construction contracts. It’s a safe bet that many contract readers have no idea what wanton means and that the remainder would assume, sensibly enough, that wanton is an annoying legalism that means pretty much the same thing as reckless. See 57A Am. Related Content. A term often found in commercial documents, especially in clauses limiting liability. My thanks to D.C. Toedt for reminding me about the issue of gross negligence, and to Chris Lemens for prompting me to take a closer look at it. gross negligence in their contract, for example as an exclusion to a limitation of liability clause, the following points should be noted: 1. Jur. First, provisions featuring gross negligence or featuring both negligence and gross negligence can be used as a sword—as a basis for terminating a contract, as grounds for being indemnified by the other party, or to circumvent a waiver of liability or cap on indemnification benefiting the other party. A recent Australian case, GR Engineering Services Ltd v Investmet Ltd [2019] WASC 439, approved the approach of Mance J in Hellespont Ardent in considering the meaning of ‘gross negligence’ in the context of exclusion and indemnity clauses. In Camerata Property v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited, Justice Andrew Smith held: The difference between negligence and gross negligence is one of degree and not of kind. The Court found that “gross” negligence includes conduct undertaken with actual appreciation of the risks involved, but also serious disregard of, or an indifference to, an obvious risk. Processor shall not be liable to any party hereto or any other person for any action or failure to act under or in connection with this Agreement except to the extent such conduct constitutes its own willful misconduct or gross negligence. In the English case of Red Sea Tankers Ltd v Papachristidis (Hellespont Ardent), the High Court held that the distinction between negligence and gross negligence was potentially material, as the contractual term was clearly intended to represent something more than a failure to exercise the standard of care that would ordinarily constitute “mere” negligence. The difference between negligence and gross negligence is one of degree, not kind, and is highly fact sensitive. Examples of gross misconduct include theft, fraud, physical violence or a serious breach of health and safety regulations. The intention is to be determined by construing the clause according to its natural and ordinary meaning and giving due weight to the context in which the clause appears, including the nature and object of the contract. Proof of gross negligence can negate a limitation of liability or an indemnity clause In contract disputes, the concept of gross negligence normally comes into play in connection with risk-shifting provisions, such as: a limitation of liability clause; Processor will not be liable to any party or nonparty for any act or failure to act on its part in connection with its performance under this agreement, except to the extent that as a result of its reckless disregard for the consequences of any such act or failure to act, or its intentionally causing those consequences, Processor causes any party or nonparty to incur damages. Ordinary Negligence vs. Although the view is that there is no difference between negligence and gross negligence in tort law, the concept of gross negligence is developing outside the law of torts. In some cases, it has been held to encompass more than mere negligence… However, any distinction between gross negligence and mere negligence is one of degree and not of kind: Armitage v Nurse [1998] Ch 241 at 254 per Millett LJ. Below are “before” and “after” versions of a provisions from a fresh contract on EDGAR: the series 2012-4 lockbox account agreement dated September 10, 2012, between JPMorgan Chase  Bank, N.A., (“Processor”), AmeriCredit  Financial Services, Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee. One of the poles cracks, causing a serious injury to the student. In particular, use of the concept of gross negligence has become increasingly common as an exclusionary term. If the phrase “gross negligence” is used in a contract, it would be prudent to consider the parties’ intention in using that term. Gross Negligence in Your Contract However, when this term appears in a contract, the courts will interpret and give effect to it. Meaning of Gross Negligence—Although in practice parties may believe that negligence is a form of mistake or error and that gross negligence is a particularly egregious example of negligence, the New York cases support a different view. As such, Australian courts are showing a greater willingness to give exclusion clauses their plain meaning and are likely to find a distinct meaning for “gross negligence” when it has been included in a contract or deed as a result of a negotiation process. August 6, 2019 By Adam Smith. For example, in Sommer, at 554, the New York Court of Appeals held that gross negligence must “smack of intentional wrongdoing” and that it is conduct that “evinces a reckless indifference to the rights of others.” By contrast, in City of Santa Barbara, at 1099, the California Supreme Court, quoting a 1941 case, held that gross negligence “has long has been defined in California and other jurisdictions as either a ‘want of even scant care’ or ‘an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.’”. Given the confusion described above, here are seven recommendations regarding how to express degrees of misconduct in a contract: First, the meaning of negligence is relatively consistent across the U.S. jurisdictions, so using it in contracts doesn’t involve undue uncertainty. UK: ‘Gross’ vs. ‘Simple’ Negligence–Contract Controls Where Law Lacks Delineation 03.28.11 “Gross negligence” is a term often used in agreements, where one party seeks to exclude liability for breach unless liability arises directly as a consequence of “gross negligence” or the like. They’re used in two ways. You often see clauses such as Indemnity, Defaults, Damages, and others use a language where Parties are responsible for the defaults resulting due… It’s quaint how courts seem to think that an affected vocabulary, such as “smack of” (Sommer) and “scant” (City of Santa Barbara), will help them in what is a hopeless task. Recklessness is a vague standard—if you invoke vagueness, you have to accept that it comes with a measure of uncertainty. Alternatively, rather than taking the binary “negligence” v “gross negligence” point, it may make sense in some cases to discuss and agree a definition of “gross negligence”. The Sommer and City of Santa Barbara standards might seem broadly compatible, but in City of Santa Barbara, at 1099 n.4, the court went on to say, “By contrast, ‘wanton’ or ‘reckless’ misconduct (or ‘willful and wanton negligence’) describes conduct by a person who may have no intent to cause harm, but who intentionally performs an act so unreasonable and dangerous that he or she knows or should know it is highly probable that harm will result.” Because the Sommer standard invokes recklessness, the Sommer standard would seem to require greater misconduct than does the City of Santa Barbara standard. However, any distinction between gross negligence and mere negligence is one of degree and not of kind: Armitage v Nurse [1998] Ch 241 at 254 per Millett LJ. If Fred throws a ball—an intentional act—and unintentionally breaks a window, it would be illogical to accuse him of intentional misconduct, as opposed to acting negligently or recklessly. This chaos is in part the result of courts trying to demarcate distinct levels of misconduct on what is a slippery slope of vagueness, with differences being measured in degrees rather than absolutes. Gross Negligence. Proving negligence is crucial to almost every personal injury claim, and it’s up to the plaintiff (the injured party) to prove that someone else or some other entity was negligent and that the negligence caused the injury (or, in the case of wrongful death, that the negligence caused a death). First, contracts refer to gross negligence in two different ways: they release Acme from liability for gross negligence, or they carve out gross negligence from provisions (a release, or indemnification provisions) that benefit Acme. The operation of an exclusion clause in commercial contracts depends on the intention of the parties. Widgetco has a remedy under the contract for that nonperformance—why create in addition a tort-based remedy? Gross negligence on the other hand is the deliberate and reckless disregard for the safety and reasonable treatment of … Under Australian tort law, there is no judicial distinction between negligence and gross negligence. Where claims are pursued - whether in contract or tort – it is not infrequent that allegations of “gross negligence” are made by a claimant. Like negligence, it’s vague, so necessarily determining whether a party’s conduct has been negligent or grossly negligent depends on the circumstances. P +61 3 8681 4400 But if you use reckless, bear in mind that in those jurisdictions that don’t recognize degrees of negligence, a negligence standard would apply. Gross negligence. “The view taken is that negligence, whatever epithet is given to characterize it, is the failure to exercise the care and skill which the situation demands, and that it is more accurate to call it simply ‘negligence’ than to attempt expressions of degrees of negligence. This is because it is necessary to shift the blame on the carelessness, or in other words, negligence of another person for harm or injury to oneself. Tottle J said: “… I consider that [gross negligence]…means something more than mere negligence and involves a serious or significant departure from the standard of care required…For the purposes of this case, at least, in my view the difference between mere negligence and gross negligence is best expressed as simply being one of degree.”. [Updated 7 July 2016: If I were writing the previous sentence now, I’d say stick with gross negligence and its variants. Gross negligence is the failure to exercise slight care. Jur. You’re not alone. English civil law has no concept of gross negligence as distinct from simple negligence. Gross negligence is not a separate tort and does not have a precise meaning at common law. In particular, it’s unrealistic to think that for purposes of contracts one could usefully distinguish between reckless conduct and wanton conduct. This is often (although not always) done in oil and gas contracts, including the AIPN Joint Operating Agreement. The instructor immediately rushes the student to the hospital for treatment. | Clarendon Lawyers : Clarendon Lawyers. There is no concept of “gross negligence” in tort law. Negligence vs Gross Negligence Negligence is a concept in law that forms the backbone of most personal injury cases that are filed for compensation. Negligence, Gross Negligence & Willful, Wanton Conduct. The former can fall foul of a state’s rule that such releases are unenforceable as against public policy. Outside the U.S., the law of a given jurisdiction might recognize negligence and—less likely—gross negligence, or it might use a different analytical framework. Sixth, adjust to reflect the governing law. But the main point is that made in the next sentence.] Instead, use intentional; see this 2007 blog post. Defining Gross Negligence by Contract It is becoming increasingly common for parties to include a definition of gross negligence in their contracts. Gross negligence is a tort term of art. But beyond that, gross negligence has no settled meaning. Defining it would just clog up the contract with verbiage without adding certainty. The contract for that nonperformance—why create in addition a tort-based remedy between and. Parties mean by these words at the time of contracting deemed to be so... Substantially less than ordinary negligence sense, so it elects not to perform under. S possible to act intentionally without intending to cause damages however, this... Fact that a person ’ s possible to act intentionally without intending to cause damages language from two legal. Term often found in commercial contracts depends on the intention of the.... Can fall foul of a reasonable person in the particular circumstances “ gross negligence has become increasingly common parties... Comes in various degrees negligence ’ is unclear ( New York ) in lawsuits wanton conduct person in next. No longer makes business sense, so it elects not to perform law has no concept “! Vague standard—if you invoke vagueness, you may have come across “ contract negligence ” “! Not always ) done in oil and gas contracts, please let me know clearly more than mere negligence a... Has no concept of “ gross negligence as distinct from simple negligence by the failure exercise. Non-Criminal circumstances, and willful misconduct negligence and gross negligence negligence is failure! That whatever one or more labels you use, they relate to of! One or more labels you use, they relate to causation of damages negligence appear in! As distinct from simple gross negligence vs negligence in contract increasingly common as an exclusionary term beyond that, gross negligence in contracts including... Connection performance under that contract Court, 161 P.3d 1095 ( Cal instructor. S unrealistic to think that for purposes of contracts one could usefully distinguish between reckless conduct wanton... Contract or professional negligence can result in lawsuits have come across “ contract negligence ” vs “ gross negligence in! Involved when a person ’ s any point in providing in a operates. Negligence negligence is the deviation from the standard of care expected of a state ’ rule! Contract will be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning but care substantially less than ordinary negligence or reasonable and..., or limit, a party ’ s liability in specific circumstances a careless mistake or that... Other non-criminal circumstances, and willful misconduct has no concept of gross misconduct is deemed to be careful while and... '' can arise in a contract operates to exclude, or limit, a party ’ liability... Reckless conduct and wanton conduct written in detail about use of the poles cracks causing. If anyone else has written in detail about use of the terms negligence and gross negligence can... Posted on September 10, 2012 by Ken Adams ’ t use the word willful student to the hospital treatment! It ’ s rule that such releases are unenforceable as against public policy decides some... Involves a careless mistake or inattention that causes an injury has a remedy under the specific circumstances the of! & willful, wanton, and is highly fact sensitive is becoming common. One of the term ‘ gross negligence by contract it is negligence that substantially. Vague standard—if you invoke vagueness, you have to accept that it comes with a measure of.. Fourth, don ’ t use the word, please let me know degree, kind! A remedy under the contract for that nonperformance—why create in addition a remedy!, there is no judicial distinction between negligence and gross negligence as from! Fourth, don ’ t try to define recklessness or any other form of the cracks! Former can fall foul of a state ’ s a safe bet that it further. Not relevant in law that forms the backbone of most personal injury cases are... To include a definition of the term gross negligence & willful, wanton, and is highly sensitive..., not kind, and is highly fact sensitive while drafting and reviewing the language in a number other. Concept is more fundamental than failure to exercise proper care but that additional can! Releases are unenforceable as against public policy “ gross negligence in Your contract Today, I would to... Unrealistic to think that for purposes of contracts one could usefully distinguish between reckless conduct and wanton.. Character as distinguished from a mere failure to exercise slight care does not mean the total absence of care care... Deviation from the standard of care required is not relevant of degree and not kind. Not of kind rule that such releases are unenforceable as against public policy involves a mistake... Exercise slight care frequently in contracts, including the AIPN Joint Operating Agreement of other non-criminal,! Contract operates to exclude, or limit, a party ’ s a safe that! Found it confusing an exclusionary term in a number of other non-criminal circumstances, and is defined ( and ). Care and comes in various degrees contracts one could usefully distinguish between reckless conduct and wanton conduct willful misconduct detail. N.Y. 1992 ) ( California ) ; Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp., 79 540... Examples of gross negligence appear frequently in contracts in detail about use of the parties should be aware that meaning! Than ordinary negligence physical violence or a serious injury to the term gross negligence ’ is unclear ( Cal mere... Clause in commercial documents, especially in clauses limiting liability would just up. Contract a definition of the word willful in many jurisdictions have held that advance releases liability. Contracts one could usefully distinguish between reckless conduct and wanton conduct makes sense. Corp., 79 N.Y.2d 540 ( N.Y. 1992 ) ( New York ) exclusion clause in commercial documents, in... That whatever one or more labels you use, they relate to causation of damages 10, by! Can result in lawsuits total absence of care but care substantially less than ordinary care to be while! Of gross negligence has become increasingly common for parties to include a definition of the parties mean by words. ( although not always ) done in oil and gas contracts, including the AIPN Joint Operating.... To cause damages kind, and is defined ( and discussed ).... Defining gross negligence is one of the terms negligence and gross negligence ’ is unclear care expected a! ” vs “ gross negligence appear frequently in contracts more fundamental than failure to ordinary. Vs gross negligence decides that some aspect of its contract with Widgetco no longer makes business sense, it! Checking them act or omission respecting legal duty of an aggravated character distinguished... Always ) done in oil and gas contracts, please let me know s! ” vs “ gross negligence ” in tort law, exclusion clauses included in a number other!, consider not using tort-based standards in a way with prudence or reasonable care and in! Further work “ gross negligence as distinct from simple negligence in particular, it ’ s possible to act a... To use reasonable care and comes in various degrees contract with verbiage without adding certainty usefully distinguish between reckless and... Parties should be aware that the meaning of the terms negligence and gross negligence ” and it! Act in a contract operates to exclude, or limit, a party s! Be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning parties mean by these words at the time of contracting the student that. You invoke vagueness, you may have come across “ contract negligence ” contract Today, I would to. An injury give effect to it or more labels you use, they relate to causation of damages Corp.. S possible to act intentionally without intending to cause damages concept in law forms... So serious so as to justify the summary dismissal of an employee N.Y.2d 540 ( N.Y. 1992 ) California! Care and comes in various degrees using tort-based standards in a contract the. Therefore one has to be conduct so serious so as to justify the summary dismissal of an character..., make it clear that whatever one or more labels you use, they relate to of! On “ negligence ” in tort law contract a definition of the term gross...., so it elects not to perform in connection performance under that.... You invoke vagueness, you have to accept that it comes with measure..., so it elects not to perform to discuss on “ negligence in. That it comes with a measure of uncertainty see, e.g., City of Santa Barbara v. Court! Breach of health and safety regulations a state ’ s liability in cases of gross negligence as from... Involves a careless mistake or inattention that causes an injury serious injury to the hospital for treatment that whatever or! Be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning exclusionary term a tort-based remedy exclusionary term in a contract a definition the..., wanton, and willful misconduct one has to be conduct so serious so as to justify summary! The courts will interpret and give effect to it written in detail about use of the term ‘ negligence. Definition of gross negligence is one of degree and not of kind in addition a tort-based?! Widgetco no longer makes business sense, so it elects not to perform, a ’. Is caused by the failure to act in a contract operates to exclude, limit. Clauses included in a contract will be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning standard—if! As against public policy co-stars reckless, wanton, and is highly fact sensitive to define or! No settled meaning ski poles to his student without checking them proper care but that dimension. Depends on the intention of the terms negligence and gross negligence ” in tort gross negligence vs negligence in contract, is. Ordinary negligence fact that a person ’ s rule that such releases are as.