The AXA motor policy exclude liability due to "wilful act" or "wilful negligence". I searched for a definition of "wilful negligence". The nearest is "gross negligence" or "wilful misconduct". It is explained here:
http://www.blakes.com/english/view_disc.asp?ID=114
http://www.blakes.com/english/view_disc.asp?ID=114
In a negligence suit, the plaintiff seeks to establish that the failure of the defendant to act as a reasonable person caused the plaintiff's injury. An intoxicated driver who accidentally injures a pedestrian may not have intended to cause the pedestrian's injury. But because a reasonable person would not drive while intoxicated because it creates an unreasonable risk of harm to pedestrians and other drivers, an intoxicated driver may be held liable to an injured plaintiff for negligence despite his lack of intent to injure the plaintiff.
ReplyDeleteThe law considers a variety of factors in determining whether a person has acted as the hypothetical reasonable person would have acted in a similar situation. These factors include the knowledge, experience, and perception of the person, the activity the person is engaging in, the physical characteristics of the person, and the circumstances surrounding the person's actions.
BTW, a reasonable person would not drive a Ferari, whether intoxicated or not; at that speed, thinking an accident would not happen, hence ....hence the driver may be held liable to an injured plaintiff for negligence despite his lack of intent to injure the plaintiff....
Note "despite his lack of intent" vs "wilful" which might actually carry some intent ...