Negligence gross

The originator or manufacturer named on the product will only be hable to the user, whatever the legal ground, in case of intent or gross negligence. 

Despite the evidence of fiscal and competitive benefits enjoyed by the various industries which have embraced process analytics, pharmaceutical companies have been notoriously restrained in their efforts to deploy PAT. Indeed, the pharmaceutical industry has slipped so far behind peer industries that a well-known Wall Street Journal article from 2003 [34] characterized the manufacturing prowess of drug makers as lagging far behind potato-chip and laundry-soap makers. While the declaration was shocking to many, it was, nonetheless, an accurate assessment. Before indicting the industry for gross negligence, however, it is important to consider the various factors which have acted over time to create the current state of affairs. 

Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional activities, provided, however, that engineers may seek indemnification for services arising out of their practice for other than gross negligence, where the engineer s interests cannot otherwise be protected. 

Therefore, when an expert witness through painstaking effort evaluates all available sources and interprets them in a technically sound manner, in good conscience and to his best understanding, then even if the conclusions of the expert report were wrong he could not be made liable for any gross negligence. 

Nevertheless, the situation becomes more complex if patients appear to have been infected with viral hepatitis by a dentist or a doctor and claim compensation from the respective personal liability insurance. The decision taken here will be based on the general terms and conditions of the insurance policy itself Likewise, the definition of intent and gross negligence , as stipulated under German law, will have to be clarified once all relevant factors have been reviewed. 

In the case of intentional breach or gross negligence of the relevant legislation, a court may impose a fine or, in the case of serious offences, pass a custodial sentence. However, this procedure requires that the prosecution authorities decide to bring a criminal charge against the offender, which very rarely occurs. 

No tamper-evident systems are employed on packs. This omission is gross negligence on the part of the company, since a degree of tamper-evidence can be provided very easily and cheaply, e.g. tamper-evident fragile paper labels. Anticounterfeiting systems should, as has already been said, only be used after long, detailed and very careful consideration of the problems. 

Willful/Reckless Conduct —Behavior that is even worse than gross negligence is willful/ reckless conduct. It involves intentionally neglecting one s responsibility to exercise reasonable care. 

Balen, P. (2004) Gross negligence manslaughter. Clinical Risk, 10, 25-27. 

At the time of the trial, the offence of manslaughter utilised an objective recklessness standard, as established in R v Lawrence [1982] AC 510 and R v Seymour [1983] 2 AC 493, rather than the gross negligence standard utilised following the subsequent decision in R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171. 

Reportable occurrences in the voluntary system should include any adverse event and any near miss, excluding events related to the natural course of a disease. Criminal activity, gross negligence, and professional misconduct should not be reported to a voluntary system. 

A blameless, confidential system does not apply to circumstances of gross negligence, reckless or disruptive behavior, malfeasance, intentional violations, impairment due to drugs or alcohol, or inability or unwillingness to learn over time. These circumstances, although rare, pose a threat to patient safety and must be dealt with swiftly, fairly and professionally from an administrative perspective. Blamelessness and accountability can and must coexist. 

Where the qualified volunteer acts in bad faith or is guilty of gross negligence... 

---