1. Conduct whereby the actor does not desire harmful consequence but nonetheless foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk. • Recklessness involves a greater degree of fault than negligence but a lesser degree of fault than intentional wrongdoing. [Cases: Negligence 274. C.J.S. Negligence §§ 104–105, 109.]
2. The state of mind in which a person does not care about the consequences of his or her actions.
— Also termed heedlessness. Cf. WANTONNESS. [Cases: Negligence 274. C.J.S. Negligence §§ 104–105, 109.]
“The ordinary meaning of the word [recklessness] is a high degree of carelessness. It is the doing of something which in fact involves a grave risk to others, whether the doer realises it or not. The test is therefore objective and not subjective.” R.F.V. Heuston, Salmond on the Law of Torts 194 (17th ed. 1977).
“An abiding difficulty in discussing the legal meaning of recklessness is that the term has been given several different shades of meaning by the courts over the years. In the law of manslaughter, ‘reckless’ was long regarded as the most appropriate adjective to express the degree of negligence needed for a conviction: in this sense, it meant a high degree of carelessness. In the late 1950s the courts adopted a different meaning of recklessness in the context of mens rea, referring to D’s actual awareness of the risk of the prohibited consequence occurring: we shall call this ‘common-law recklessness.’ Controversy was introduced into this area in the early 1980s, when the House of Lords purported to broaden the meaning of recklessness so as to include those who failed to give thought to an obvious risk that the consequence would occur ….” Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law 154 (1991).
