The following excerpt is from L.W. v. Grubbs, 92 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 1996):
Love v. King, 784 F.2d 708, 713 (5th Cir.1986) (citations omitted). That statement and statements like it generally seem to assume that some exacerbated mental element will always be found. Perhaps so, but I rather expect that the relationship between mental states, possible harm, foreseeable risk, and actual harm is what has led to the somewhat inconsistent locutions that we find in some of our prior cases.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.