Which of the following is NOT one of the four conditions to prove negligence?

To understand why intention to harm is not one of the four conditions to prove negligence, it is essential to recognize the fundamental principles of negligence as they are established in tort law. Negligence occurs when an individual's failure to exercise reasonable care causes harm to another person. The four essential elements or conditions that must be proven in a negligence claim typically include:

1. Legal duty owed: The defendant had a legal obligation to act (or not act) in a certain way toward the claimant. The existence of this duty is rooted in the relationship between the parties and the circumstances of the situation.

2. Breach of duty: This condition indicates that the defendant failed to fulfill their legal obligation. The failure typically involves conduct that falls below the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances.

3. Causation: It must be demonstrated that the breach of duty directly caused the harm or damage sustained by the claimant. This involves proving that the defendant's actions were a proximate cause of the injuries.

4. Damages: Finally, the claimant must show that they suffered actual harm or loss as a result of the defendant's negligence.

Intention to harm does not have a place within these conditions