Talk:Misfeasance

Rename article

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- Kjkolb 09:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should go by one name, probably malfeasance as per the Google test, not by three names listed in serial. 66.229.160.94 05:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 11:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What about....

This has been huge in the national news on several fronts, it might even be used as a dodge or shield....

What if a seemingly honestly but wrongly prejudiced official engages in seeming willful blindness or proud ignorance in his research (poor research) "confirming the obvious," thus remains ill-informed and takes highly damaging action based upon "the information he had available?"

I've been using "professional negligence" and even "criminal negligence," but why I came here....is there a better term?
--68.127.80.84 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Can someone confirm

Can someone confirm that non/mal/mis-feasance are limited to contractual obligations? What about a railroad-switch operator. Would it make sense to say that he has commited nonfeasance is he doesn't show up to operate the switch; he commits misfeasance if he does so negligently; he commits malfeasance if he does so with an intention view to harm the passengers on the train? Piratejosh85 (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]