httpwebwitch - 8:38 pm on Nov 29, 2010 (gmt 0)
OK yeah piatkow, wikipedia says that the "negligence" (ordinary) and "gross negligence" are "the same thing, with the addition of a vituperative epithet". Since "gross" is not objectively defined, it is a legally useless adjective.
while they may have a different flavour in prose, in a contract there should be no distinction; I'm liable for "negligence", which may or may not be intentional; negligence may be a result of malice, but is not a sufficient indicator of malice.
"gross" may be meaningful to describe failing of "conduct one expects from the proverbial "reasonable person" (source: wikipedia), but it's not something that defines a distinction in liability.
hmm. that's good to know.