The Ordinary Care Standard: Your Guide to Legal Negligence

Introduction: The Foundation of Negligence Law

The concept of the Ordinary Care Standard is one of the most fundamental principles in tort law, particularly in cases involving negligence. In legal terms, Ordinary Care is often used interchangeably with Due Care and Reasonable Care. It represents the degree of prudence and caution that a reasonably prudent and rational person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.

This standard acts as the essential legal yardstick against which an individual’s conduct is measured. If a person fails to meet this benchmark, they are considered negligent and may be held liable for any resulting harm or damage caused to another party. Essentially, negligence is the legal finding of a failure to use ordinary care.

Defining the ‘Reasonable Person Standard’

To understand ordinary care, one must first grasp the concept of the hypothetical ‘Reasonable Person’. This fictional individual is the model of societal expectation—they are vigilant, cautious, and prudent. Crucially, the reasonable person is not defined as the most cautious person, nor are they someone who is unusually bold.

The Four Elements of Negligence and Ordinary Care

The standard of ordinary care is critical to proving the first two elements of a legal negligence claim. A personal injury claim generally requires proof of the following four elements:

1. Duty: The defendant must have owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. This duty is often a general obligation to exercise ordinary care to prevent foreseeable harm.
2. Breach of Duty: The defendant failed to meet the standard of ordinary care required in the circumstances.
3. Causation: The defendant’s breach of duty was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
4. Damages: The plaintiff suffered actual harm or loss (e.g., medical expenses, lost wages).

Variable Standards: When ‘Ordinary’ Is Not Enough

While the standard of ordinary care applies to most people, the law acknowledges that certain roles require a specialized degree of caution. This results in the standard of care being adjusted based on the context of the situation or the identity of the person being judged.

1. Professional Standard of Care

Individuals in skilled professions—such as a Medical Expert, Financial Expert, or Legal Expert—are held to a higher standard. They are evaluated not by the average person, but by the level of skill and care that a reasonably prudent professional in that same field and locality would exercise under similar circumstances. Failing this higher benchmark is often termed professional negligence or malpractice.

2. Minors and Specialized Situations

The standard is also lowered for children, who are generally held to the standard of a reasonable child of the same age and experience. Conversely, different standards may apply in true emergencies, where a person’s actions might be judged more leniently if their conduct is still deemed reasonable under the extreme circumstances.

Comparison of Legal Standards of Care

Standard	Applies To	The Benchmark
Ordinary Care	General Public	A reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances.
Professional Standard	Skilled Experts (e.g., Medical Expert)	A reasonably prudent person in that specific profession/industry.

Summary: Your Key Takeaways on Ordinary Care

1. The Ordinary Care Standard is the minimum level of attention, caution, and prudence required by law to prevent foreseeable harm to others.
2. It is defined by the hypothetical Reasonable Person Standard, not the most cautious or perfect individual.
3. A failure to meet this standard is synonymous with Negligence, forming the basis of personal injury lawsuits.
4. The standard is contextual: a higher Professional Standard of Care applies to skilled experts (e.g., Medical Expert).
5. Adhering to ordinary care is a fundamental social contract to avoid acts that unreasonably threaten the safety of others.

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Is ‘Ordinary Care’ the same as ‘Due Diligence’?

A: While similar, “Due Diligence” is a term more commonly used in the business world, referring to the careful investigation a reasonably prudent party would take before a financial transaction. Ordinary Care is the broader legal concept applicable across all areas of tort law.

Q: Does the Ordinary Care Standard apply in every state?

A: Yes. The concept of ordinary care, or its synonym “reasonable care,” is a foundational element of negligence and tort law across the United States. Specific statutes, like California Civil Code 1714, explicitly codify the duty of individuals to use “ordinary care or skill” to prevent injury to others.

Q: What is the difference between Ordinary Negligence and Professional Negligence?

A: Ordinary Negligence is the failure to meet the standard of the average, reasonable person. Professional Negligence (malpractice) is the failure of a skilled expert (like a Medical Expert) to meet the higher standard of a similarly skilled expert in their field.

Q: Can I still be found liable if I didn’t intend to cause harm?

A: Yes. Negligence by definition is the failure to use ordinary care, often without the intent to do harm. The law focuses on whether your act or omission created a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of injury, not on your personal intent.