Unlike crimes which are punishable even without any specific damage caused, negligence requires that some sort of loss to a person or property must have occurred. For example, if a customer slips and falls on a wet floor in a store but suffers no injury, there is no right to sue, even though the store employees have been careless in contrast, if a drunk driver is caught, even if they haven't caused an accident or injured anyone, they are still guilty. If you choose to participate in this discussion please answer these questions 1. Why do you think there is a difference between crimes and negligence in terms of the requirement for damages to have occurred? 2. Do you agree that damages should be required for someone to be guilty of negligence? Why or why not? Permalink Reply