Which of the following is NOT a consequence of negligence in the legal framework of liability?

In the context of negligence within the legal framework of liability, an injunction is not typically a direct consequence. Negligence primarily leads to civil liability, where the injured party may seek compensation through various remedies such as legal compensation, judgment for damages, or even the possibility of criminal charges in certain severe cases.

Legal compensation refers to monetary awards given to the injured party for losses incurred due to another's negligent actions. Judgment for damages similarly pertains to the legal determination of the amount that one party owes to another as compensation for harm caused. Criminal charges may arise in instances where negligence results in egregious harm or death, leading to potential criminal accountability.

In contrast, an injunction is a court order that directs a party to do or refrain from doing specific acts, and it is typically associated with situations where immediate intervention is necessary to prevent further harm or injury. While injunctions can be a remedy in other legal contexts, they are not a standard consequence stemming from negligence claims in the realm of liability. Thus, identifying the injunction as not a consequence of negligence is a clear distinction in understanding legal remedies associated with negligence cases.