Pollock defines intention as,
“the wish or desire accompanying an act having regard not only to the act itself but to the consequences to be produced.”
Motive is the ulterior object or intent or the ultimate purpose with which an act is done. Motive is a state of mind existing prior to the commission of an act. As a general rule a man’s motive is irrelevant in determining the question of legal liability, except for the cases discussed earlier in answer to a previous question.
Negligence is culpable carelessness. It is the absence of such care as it was th duty of the defendant to use. Carelessness excludes wrongful intention. These are two contrasted and mutually inconsistent mental attitudes of a person towards his acts and their consequences. No result which is due to carelessness can have been also intended. Nothing which was intended can have been due to carelessness.
To put it in a simpler language, negligence is the converse of intention. What is done negligently is not done intentionally and vice versa.
Consequences are known and desired in the case of intention, while negligence they may be known but not desired. Liability attaches to intention because the injury is desired and in the case of negligence because its prevention is not sufficiently desired.
The willful wrongdoer desires to do the harm; the negligent wrongdoer docs not sufficiently desire to avoid it, being careless whether it ensues or not.
A Verdant and Inadvertent Negligence:
Negligence is of two kudos, according as it is or is not accompanied by inadvertence. Advertent negligence is commonly termed willful negligence or recklessness. Inadvertent negligence may be distinguished as simple.
In the former the harm done is foreseen as possible, or probable, but it is not willed. In the latter it is neither foreseen nor willed. If the harm is both foreseen and willed, it is intentional. Consequences due to that form of negligence which is distinguished as recklessness, that is to say, all consequences which the actor foresees as the probable result of his wrongful act, are also treated by law as intentional.
It is the state of mind of a person who does an act without knowing or desiring, or bothering to advert to, the consequences. It is also termed as “inadvertent negligence.”
In this case the person knows the consequences but does not desire them. This is also termed as “advertent negligence.”
The actor adverts to the consequences but assumes on insufficient grounds that they will not follow. Rashness is almost analogous to recklessness.