Hey PBL that's some magnum opus.
It's gonna take me more time than I got now to read it some more and make sure I understand what your saying .
What I want to say is that negligence is fundamentally a legal concept, and it derives other everyday uses from this fundamental meaning. I cite the Webster clarification to support this view. I don't believe dictionaries "define" words; I think only use does that. Good dictionaries indicate to us the use, and I think Webster indicates that use is inextricably bound with common law.
If the characterisation is primarily legal, such as it is with the concept of negligence, then how you determine whether behavior is negligent or not is through a prosecution.
Before I do all that can you let me know if your saying your argument still holds good if we use the Oxford English Dictionary definition instead of Webster's. Since our law and our language developed from England looking at what the Oxford dictionary says about the word seems like a good place to start.
The Oxford gives two definitions or uses if you prefer , one ordinary and one legal.
negligence
• noun 1 lack of proper care and attention. 2 Law breach of a duty of care which results in damage.
— DERIVATIVES negligent adjective.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/negligence?view=uk
Nothing legal about #1 unless you're saying "proper" is a legal concept.
Two nations divided by a common language as Oscar Wilde said or maybe it was George Bernard Shaw, one of those guys anyways.
It appears from Bronx's reaction that he doesn't like that conclusion either.
Nope, I think your conclusion is wrong.
If you use the Oxford definition instead of Webster's it looks to me like someone could be "evaluated" as negligent in the ordinary meaning of the word #1 even though they ain't been proved in a court to be negligent in the legal meaning #2.
B.