In Jardel Co. v. Hughes, 523 A.2d 518, 530-531 (Del. 1987), the Supreme Court analyzed "recklessness" as follows: Two significant elements must be present for recklessness to exist. The first is the act itself, e.g. in accident cases the negligent operation of a motor vehicle or aircraft.... The second, crucial element involves the actor's state of mind and the issue of foreseeability, or the perception the actor had or should have had of the risk of harm which his conduct would create. The actor's state of mind is thus vital.... Where the claim of recklessness is based on an error of judgment, a form of passive negligence, the plaintiff's burden is substantial. It must be shown that the precise harm which eventuated must have been reasonably apparent but consciously ignored in the formulation of the judgment. (Id.)