Mr Purdey.
You stated: "but even distinguished Law Lords can get it badly wrong. Try the AP definition that I quoted earlier".
Please accept the following from someone with a fair amount of experience in Law.
Do you really accept that the AP definition of negligence holds more authority than that of the Law Lords? Do you honestly believe after a life at the bar that these 3 distinguished legal practitioners would, contemporaneously, have such an aberration of mind to incorrectly define such a central issue?
You have intimated that the AP definition holds more weight than that given by their Lordships. Please indulge me for a moment while i describe the production process of the AP.
The legal definition of negligence is of a stratiform nature. DLS are consulted to provide definitions for AP's. The problems with DLS are well known and deserve a thread of their own; very few people being "jack of all trades master of none". Suffice to say that, professionally, DLS are not highly regarded.
The definition quoted in the AP is, incidentally, almost directly copied from the laymans book on Tort (nutshells for those in the know). For your information the AP quote could be described as the O level definition whereas the Law Lords definition is Post -Graduate. Consequently one must assume that this was not clear to you. Merely because you cannot comprehend does not make it wrong.
It is indeed arrogant to claim superior knowledge without foundation. You argue eloquently and with conviction yet your arguments lack credibility; the subject of this post being proof positive