Which of the following is NOT a criterion for establishing negligence?

In the context of establishing negligence, the correct response highlights that intent to harm is not a necessary criterion. Negligence is fundamentally about a failure to meet a standard of care that results in harm to another party, rather than any intent to cause that harm.

To prove negligence, four elements must typically be satisfied:

1. Legal duty owed: This refers to the obligation one party has to another to act with a certain standard of care. Essentially, this is about establishing a recognized responsibility.

2. Breach of legal duty owed: This occurs when the party fails to adhere to the standard of care that is expected in a given situation. The breach signifies that the duty was violated.

3. Damages: This element refers to the actual harm or injury that resulted from the breach of duty. It must be demonstrated that the negligent act led to physical, financial, or emotional harm to the claimant.

Intent to harm is related to a different legal concept known as "intentional torts," where a person consciously and purposely acts to cause harm to someone else. In negligence cases, the focus is on the lack of reasonable care rather than on the malicious intent of the actor. Thus, intent to harm is not a