Connections

I was recently asked what the difference was between Liability and Negligence.   There is a big difference and I can give examples of each from some of the things I’ve seen while doing accreditation reviews around the country.   First see how the courts define each.

• A liability is something, someone or an event which increases the chance of something occurring (i.e. it is a cause) that could have a negative result.  There is not a conscious decision to create an incident that would lead to harm, but the expectation is there that if something should happen, the individual or organization will bear a reasonable degree of liability for it.
• Negligence can be generally defined as conduct that is culpable (i.e. in the wrong) because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from foreseeable risks of harm.  Negligence is having a lack of concern or care to take the necessary steps to address a potential hazard or danger.

Now for an example from one of my accreditation reviews that illustrates both.   A Teen Challenge ministry agrees to accept the liability of having a student’s family come onto the center’s property for visitation.   In the case at one center, one of the children visiting their dad  tripped and fell against a window causing the window to break and the child to be cut badly.  The program is in a older house with windows that are much lower and closer to the floor then modern codes would allow.   The Teen Challenge ministry had recognized the liability and placed an object in front of the window in an effort to prevent an incident like this, but two other visiting children had moved it away from the window.   That fact aside, it is reasonable to expect the Teen Challenge center to accept some of the liability associated with the incident since a case could be made that the leadership should have blocked access to the window in a way that could not be easily undone.

Two months later, when I was there to do the accreditation review, the window was still broken. The accreditation standards require that the leadership of a center keep the facility in good repair. To receive accreditation, the window had to be fixed. A child falling against the broken window could cause serious harm. A charge of negligence could easily stick since “lack of concern or care to take the necessary steps to address a potential hazard or danger” had not been taken. Due diligence, which is the opposite of negligence, had not been exercised by the leadership of this Teen Challenge center. The leadership was negligent and the accreditation review pointed this out and headed off what could have been a costly legal issue. Therefore, do the best that can be done to address all potential liabilities and choose to not be negligent in correcting them.