The Article below comes from a Convention. I am confused about the exact meaning of its last part:
A person liable shall not be entitled to limit his liability if it is proved that the loss resulted from his personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result.
I divide this Article into three parts for easy understanding:
if it's proved that the loss resulted from his personal act or omission,
(which is) committed with the intent to cause such loss, or
(committed) recklessly.
Thus my question is: Should the last part -- “and with knowledge that...” -- come after “recklessly,” after “committed with the intent”, or should it modify both?
Please let me know how you understand (and divide) this Article.
Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you.