Negligence vs. Imprudence — What's the Difference?

Negligence involves a passive omission or failure to perform actions that a reasonable person would undertake to prevent harm. It reflects a lack of intention to cause harm but still results in a breach of duty. Imprudence, on the other hand, indicates a more active disregard for caution, often involving hasty actions without consideration of the possible consequences.

In legal contexts, negligence is a standard for liability that requires demonstrating that a reasonable person in the same situation would have acted differently. Whereas imprudence can be seen as a form of negligence, it specifically refers to acts that are carried out without due care or attention that a prudent person would consider.

Examples of negligence could include failing to signal when changing lanes, resulting in a car accident. This contrasts with imprudence, where someone might drive at high speeds in a school zone, actively disregarding the known risks and standard precautions.

Negligence often requires a condition of a duty of care that has been breached due to the lack of action. In contrast, imprudence might involve taking an unnecessary risk that a prudent person would typically avoid, such as using faulty equipment known to be dangerous.

The consequences of both negligence and imprudence can lead to harm or damage, but the approach to evaluating them can differ. Negligence is evaluated based on what wasn’t done but should have been, while imprudence is assessed on what was done that shouldn’t have been.