Case Law Bonus Post: MK Studios v. Princess Productions

MK Studios v. Princess Productions
Outline

• The difference between negligence and recklessness is based on:
• The degree
• and magnitude
• of the risk involved
• Negligence: the risks of the actor’s conduct exceeded its likely utility.
• Recklessness: A risk all out of proportion to and therefore recklessly disregardful of the interests of others.
• Reckless conduct:
• Involves an easily perceptible danger of death or substantial physical harm
• The probability that the harm will so result must be substantially greater than is required for ordinary negligence.

Notes
This case law does essentially two things. First, it clarifies the relationship between negligence and recklessness. Second, it gives us another way to approach understanding recklessness. I say “another” because the Midlands Civil Code selections provided already explain recklessness twice: once through listing its elements (1200) and again through defining it (1300). Why do we need another? There are key terms in both 1200 and 1300 which are ambiguous. It’s not clear what “reckless disregard” is [1200(3)] or what constitutes an “unreasonable risk” (1300). The language of this case law suggests an equivalence between a risk that is “all out of proportion to... the interests of others,” and a risk that recklessly disregards those interests. It thereby suggests a definition of reckless disregard, helping us understand 1200(3). We can also use that language to understand 1300’s reference to an unreasonable risk.
That phrasing- “all out of proportion to... the interests of others” recognizes that we take risks all the time- we get in cars, for instance. But we do that because we expect a benefit proportionate to the risk: to get where we need to go. That risk can be increased to the point where it’s wildly disproportionate to the benefit we expect to get. This case law seems to say that imposing that type of risk on others is reckless. Notice that the level of risk is based both on the outcome of the risk and on its probability. If you run a ziplining company, strapping people in well-made harnesses attached to solid cables and pushing them off heights exposes them to the risk of death: the equipment could break and they’d die. But the probability is low, and that conduct isn’t reckless. Wrapping a towel around a rope, handing it to someone and pushing them off heights while yelling “Hang on tight!” exposes them to the same risk- if anything goes wrong, they’ll die. But the level of risk is greatly increased because the likelihood of that bad outcome is higher, meaning that conduct is very likely reckless.