**Question:** All are true about law in relation to charge of criminal negligence except -

A. Negligence is defined as a breach of duty to take reasonable care
B. Criminal negligence is a defense in a civil case
C. A person is not guilty of criminal negligence if they acted according to a recognized body of professional knowledge
D. Criminal negligence can only be proven when there is a direct causal link between the defendant's act and the harm caused

**Correct Answer:** .

**Core Concept:** Criminal negligence is a charge in criminal law that arises when a person fails to exercise the level of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances, leading to harm to another individual. The concept involves a breach of duty, causation, and harm.

**Why the Correct Answer is Right:** Option B is incorrect because criminal negligence is a charge, not a defense in a civil case. Criminal negligence is concerned with whether a person has acted unreasonably and caused harm to another, whereas a defense in a civil case would refer to proving that the plaintiff's injuries were not caused by the defendant's actions.

**Why Each Wrong Option is Incorrect:**

A. Negligence involves a breach of duty to take reasonable care, which is true in the context of criminal negligence.
C. Acting according to a recognized body of professional knowledge does not exempt a person from criminal negligence charges; they can still be held responsible for failing to exercise reasonable care.
D. Criminal negligence requires a direct causal link between the defendant's act and the harm caused, but option D is incorrect because it is only a requirement for proving causation in a civil case, not criminal negligence. In criminal negligence, the harm caused is sufficient to establish causation, not the directness of the link between the act and harm.

**Clinical Pearl:** In criminal negligence cases, the focus is on whether the accused's actions or omissions caused the harm, rather than establishing a direct link between the act and harm. This distinction is crucial when assessing criminal responsibility for harm resulting from medical or professional misconduct.