Can anybody tell me the difference between negligent and reckless in tort law?

I'm confused, b'coz both are not intentional, then I don't know where the difference is. Thanks. Oh yeah, the subject i'm studying is Introduction to Bus Law(American Law)

Negligence - you failed to recognize a risk of your actions and acted.
eg medical company, not knowing it's drugs are harmful, fails to research them. Someone dies as a result.

Recklessness - a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that will result from your conduct.
eg medical company researches it's drug, knows it's harmful, sells it for the purpose of profit. Someone dies as a result.

Intent - you knew the result and desired it to occur so you acted in accordance with your knowledge and desire.
eg. Medical company, managed by nazis, researches it's drug, knows they're harmful, and sells them only to minorities to kill them off.

Think of it this way: If it's negligence, it's the lack of any conscious mindset that is punished. If it's recklessness it's the conscious disregard of a known risk that's punished.

Please specify what someone was sued for to make it reckless. I know that in order to correctly allege it in a complaint you use the wording: The defendant "knew or should have known" the mental patient had violent tendencies.

You're answer may be in that wording. 'Knew' would entail recklessness. 'Should have known' would point to negligence.

Negligent means you had a duty to act, but you didn't. Reckless means that you did not take the standard of care that a prudent (regular, average, and reasonably careful) person would.

There is a more complex definition, but I think this makes it clear to me.

Recklessness is committed with wonton disregard for the other person's rights, property, health or life. The simplest way I could put it is that negligence is not knowing; reckless is not caring.