Also known as: doctrine of deviation · deviation doctrines · deviation
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
3 senses
A standard of culpability under which a person's conscious disregard or failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk constitutes recklessness or negligence when the disregard or failure involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.
An equitable principle that permits a court to modify administrative or dispositive provisions of a trust when circumstances not anticipated by the settlor would defeat or substantially impair the accomplishment of the trust's purposes.
A rule drawn from admiralty practice that treats a carrier's unjustified departure from the usual or agreed route as a material breach that deprives the carrier of contractual limitations and exemptions.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A standard of culpability under which a person's conscious disregard or failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk constitutes recklessness or negligence when the disregard or failure involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.
Quentin approved a live stunt in which contestants ran through a warehouse while forklifts operated at high speed without barriers or spotters. A forklift struck and killed a contestant. The production had received an explicit safety warning that the setup created an obvious probability of death. Quentin's approval despite that warning supplied the gross deviation required for criminal negligence.
A warehouse manager ordered workers to continue operating a defective conveyor despite daily reports that the machine could eject heavy materials without warning. When a worker was struck and killed, the manager's decision to proceed after receiving those reports demonstrated conscious disregard of a substantial risk that a law-abiding person would not have ignored.
A site supervisor directed an unlicensed operator to move a loaded skid-steer loader across a public street at night to assist a relative. The loader struck a parked car and killed its occupant. The supervisor's choice to use unlicensed personnel for a dangerous task created a substantially greater deviation from reasonable conduct than ordinary civil negligence.
2 common questions
Criminal negligence requires a substantially greater deviation from the conduct of a reasonable person than the level of negligence that suffices for civil liability. The deviation must create a high risk of death or serious bodily harm.
Supporting sources
The risk disregarded must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation, considering the nature and purpose of the conduct and the circumstances known to the actor.
An equitable principle that permits a court to modify administrative or dispositive provisions of a trust when circumstances not anticipated by the settlor would defeat or substantially impair the accomplishment of the trust's purposes.
A settlor created a trust that directed outright distribution of the remainder to a disabled beneficiary upon the life tenant's death. After the settlor died, the beneficiary's medical expenses threatened to consume the entire corpus. A court authorized conversion of the outright remainder into a special needs trust because the change preserved assets and fulfilled the settlor's intent under unanticipated circumstances.
2 common questions
A court may modify dispositive provisions when circumstances not anticipated by the settlor would defeat the trust's purposes, as when conversion to a special needs trust preserves assets for a disabled beneficiary and better fulfills the settlor's intent.
Supporting sources
Traditional doctrine permitted deviation from administrative terms but not dispositive terms. The Uniform Trust Code expands the doctrine to allow modification of either when unanticipated circumstances would impair the trust's purposes.
A rule drawn from admiralty practice that treats a carrier's unjustified departure from the usual or agreed route as a material breach that deprives the carrier of contractual limitations and exemptions.
A carrier contracted to transport goods from New York to Lisbon but diverted to a port in Brazil to pick up additional cargo for its own account. The diversion extended the voyage and exposed the goods to new perils. The carrier thereby lost the benefit of contractual limitations that would otherwise have applied to the loss.
Transatlantic Financing Corporation, the operator of the SS CHRISTOS, entered into a voyage charter with the United States on October 2, 1956, for the carriage of a full cargo of wheat from a United States Gulf port to a safe port in Iran. The charter specified the points of origin and destination but did not indicate the route to be taken. On July 26, 1956, the Government of Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company. During the ensuing international crisis, on October 27, 1956, the SS CHRISTOS sailed from Galveston on a course that would have taken her through the Suez Canal. Israel invaded Egypt on October 29, 1956, followed by invasions of the Suez Canal Zone by Great Britain and France on October 31, 1956. On November 2, 1956, the Egyptian Government closed the Suez Canal to traffic by obstructing it with sunken vessels. After the closure, Transatlantic's representative contacted an employee of the United States Department of Agriculture on or about November 7, 1956, to request instructions on the cargo and to seek additional compensation for a voyage around the Cape of Good Hope. The ship changed course and arrived in Bandar Shapur, Iran, on December 30, 1956. Transatlantic later filed a libel against the United States in the District Court seeking recovery of the costs attributable to the diversion around the Cape of Good Hope. The District Court dismissed the libel, and Transatlantic appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
1 common questions
An unreasonable deviation cancels insurance coverage and causes the carrier to forfeit the protection of contractual exceptions that would otherwise limit liability.
Supporting sources
…or because of some opinion as to policy ” Holmes, The Path of the Law , 10 Harv.L.Rev. 457, 466 (1897). : The deviation doctrine, drawn principally from admiralty insurance practice, implies into all relevant commercial instruments naming the termini of voyages the usual and customary route between those points. 1…
…TRIAL COURT DID NOT CONSIDER ALL OF THE STATUTORY FACTORS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION 3119.23 FOR GRANTING A DEVIATION. II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES TO THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE. III. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ITS PROPERTY SETTLEMENT[.] A. THE TRIAL…
…determine the status of a posthumously conceived child. The SSA’s interpretation of the relevant provisions, adhered to without deviation for many decades, is at least reasonable; the agency’s reading is therefore entitled to this Court’s deference under Chevron , 467 U. S. 837. Chevron deference is appropriate “when it…
…substantial performance was in good faith and in compliance with the contract, except for some minor and relatively unimportant deviation or omission.” Id. , at 97. The jury returned a verdict for respondent, and determined that the damages were $30,513.40. Id. , at 113. Judgment was entered. Id. , at 115. Both respondent…
A producer scheduled a high-speed forklift stunt without barriers after receiving a written report that the layout created an obvious probability of death. The producer should have been aware of the risk yet approved the event anyway. That failure to perceive the danger constituted a gross deviation from the care a reasonable person would have exercised.
Supporting sources
Supporting sources