Categories: Court Info

The Ordinary Care Standard Explained: What Is Reasonable?

Meta Description: Understand the legal concept of the Ordinary Care Standard. Learn how the “reasonable person” benchmark determines negligence, breach of duty, and legal liability in tort law.

In the vast landscape of tort law, one principle stands as the primary benchmark for determining liability: the Ordinary Care Standard. Whether you are navigating a personal injury claim or simply want to understand legal responsibility in daily life, this concept is fundamental. It is often referred to interchangeably as due care or reasonable care. At its core, it establishes the minimum level of attention and caution required of every individual in society to prevent harm to others.

But what exactly does “ordinary care” entail, and who is the mysterious “reasonable person” used for comparison? This post will demystify this critical legal principle, exploring its application, its elements, and the crucial exceptions that apply to professionals and children.

The Foundation of Tort Law: Defining “Ordinary Care”

The Ordinary Care Standard is an objective legal measure. It asks: Did the defendant act as a reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances?. If the answer is no, the defendant may be deemed negligent.

The “Reasonable Person”: A Legal Fiction

Crucially, the reasonable person is not an actual average person, nor are they concerned with the defendant’s personal intentions or beliefs. This standard is a legal fiction created by courts to maintain an objective measure of conduct.

Not the Average: The reasonable person is not guaranteed to be perfect or typical.
Not the Cautionary Extreme: They are not the most cautious individual, nor are they unusually bold.
Objective Standard: The focus is purely on the conduct itself, measured against what society expects of a prudent individual in that scenario.

Negligence, therefore, is simply the failure to use this required degree of care, precaution, and vigilance. It can be an action an ordinary prudent person would not have taken, or a failure to take an action they would have taken.

The Core Elements of Negligence and the Standard of Care

The Ordinary Care Standard is the yardstick against which the second element of a negligence claim—the breach of duty—is measured. For a plaintiff to successfully prove negligence in a civil action, they must establish four key elements:

Element	Description
1. Duty of Care	The defendant had a legal obligation to exercise reasonable care toward the plaintiff.
2. Breach of Duty	The defendant failed to conform their conduct to the required Ordinary Care Standard.
3. Causation	The defendant’s breach of duty was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.
4. Damages	The plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss that can be compensated.

Caution: The Standard is Relative

The degree of care required is not fixed, but is relative to the circumstances. What constitutes “ordinary care” when driving in heavy traffic is different from what is required when driving on an empty rural road. The standard of a prudent person varies based on the degree of danger involved in the situation.

When the Standard Changes: Exceptions and Higher Duties

While the goal of the Ordinary Care Standard is uniformity (the conduct of the “reasonable person”), the application can be adjusted based on the characteristics of the person being judged or the activity they are undertaking. In essence, while the standard itself is invariable, the required conduct changes based on the circumstances.

1. Higher Standards for Professionals

Professionals, by virtue of their specialized knowledge and skill, are held to a higher standard of care than the common person. This is often called the Professional Standard of Care. For example:

A Medical Expert is evaluated against the reasonable standard of another Medical Expert in the same specialty and locality, not the standard of an average person.
A Legal Expert must exercise the skill and knowledge that an ordinary member of their profession possesses.

This differential is essential because a professional, if judged only by the average person’s standard, could easily avoid liability for technical errors.

2. Lower Standards for Children

The law typically recognizes that children do not possess the same level of judgment or experience as adults. Therefore, a child’s conduct is usually compared to that of a reasonable child of the same age, intelligence, and experience, rather than an adult’s standard. However, if a child engages in an inherently adult activity, such as driving a car, they may be held to the adult standard.

Tip: The Sudden Emergency Doctrine

In some jurisdictions, a person who is confronted with a sudden, unexpected emergency not of their own making may be held to a slightly adjusted standard. They are judged on whether they acted as a reasonably prudent person would have when faced with a sudden crisis, which may excuse conduct that would otherwise be considered negligent, like a cab driver jumping from a vehicle being hijacked at gunpoint.

Case Application: Applying the Standard to a Hypothetical Scenario

Consider a situation involving a vehicle accident. A driver is proceeding at the speed limit on a clear road, but they glance down at their phone for one second to check a notification. During that second, they drift across the lane line and clip the vehicle next to them, causing minor damage.

Hypothetical Negligence Analysis

Duty: Yes, the driver had a duty to drive safely and with reasonable caution.
Breach (Ordinary Care Standard): A reasonable person driving a car would not divert their full attention to a cell phone, even briefly, because of the foreseeable risk of collision. By checking the phone, the driver’s conduct fell below the expected standard of care, constituting a breach.
Causation & Damages: The breach (checking the phone) directly caused the collision and the subsequent damage to the other vehicle.

Conclusion: The driver was negligent because they failed to meet the Ordinary Care Standard required of a prudent driver.

The Takeaway on Ordinary Care

The Ordinary Care Standard is a critical legal tool for upholding accountability in civil society. It is the core concept underlying all claims of negligence.

It is an Objective Benchmark: It measures conduct against a hypothetical “reasonably prudent person” under the same circumstances, disregarding the defendant’s personal state of mind.
It Defines Breach of Duty: In a tort claim, a defendant is negligent if their actions or omissions fall below the standard of ordinary care expected.
It is Relative and Contextual: The specific actions required to meet the standard change based on the surrounding circumstances and the degree of danger present.
It Has Exceptions for Skill: Individuals with specialized training (e.g., a Medical Expert or Legal Expert) are held to a higher, professional standard of care.

Summary Card: Ordinary Care Standard

The Ordinary Care Standard is the fundamental principle in negligence law, requiring every person to act with the caution and prudence that a hypothetical “reasonable person” would use in a given situation. Failing to meet this minimum standard constitutes a breach of duty and can result in liability for any resulting harm.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: What is the difference between “Ordinary Care” and “Gross Negligence”?

A: Ordinary care is the baseline standard. “Gross negligence” is a failure to exercise even slight care. It is a willful or conscious disregard for the safety of others, falling substantially below the ordinary care standard and often leading to punitive damages or criminal charges.

Q: Does the “reasonable person” standard consider a defendant’s lack of experience?

A: Generally, no. The standard is objective and does not take into account a person’s individual mental characteristics, such as inexperience, stupidity, or low intelligence. However, physical disabilities are usually factored into the circumstances (e.g., the standard for a reasonable person who is blind).

Q: Is the Ordinary Care Standard different for business owners?

A: Business owners and property holders owe a duty to people on their land to exercise reasonable care, which generally includes the responsibility to inspect and maintain the property in a safe condition and warn of dangers. In a business context, ordinary care can also relate to contractual obligations or due diligence.

Q: Can a whole industry be considered negligent under the standard?

A: Yes. While industry custom may serve as evidence of what is reasonable, courts can determine that the entire industry’s standard is inherently negligent and not beneficial to the public, even if everyone in the industry follows it. The ultimate measure remains the standard of reasonable prudence.

***

Disclaimer: This content is generated by an AI and is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice regarding your specific situation, you should consult with a qualified Legal Expert.

Ordinary Care Standard, Reasonable Person Standard, Negligence Law, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Tort Law, Legal Liability, Due Care, Prudent Person, Professional Standard of Care

geunim