Categories: Court Info

The Ordinary Care Standard: Your Guide to Negligence Law

Meta Description: Understanding The Ordinary Care Standard

The Ordinary Care Standard is the cornerstone of negligence law, determining legal liability by measuring conduct against the hypothetical ‘Reasonable Person.’ Learn how this objective benchmark, also known as ‘due care,’ is applied in personal injury and professional malpractice cases, and what constitutes a breach of this fundamental duty of care.

Understanding the Ordinary Care Standard in Negligence Law

The concept of the Ordinary Care Standard is fundamental to civil law, particularly in the realm of torts, which deals with civil wrongs and injuries. Simply put, this standard acts as the measuring stick for human conduct in society. It is the legal principle used by courts and juries to determine whether an individual has acted negligently and is therefore liable for harm caused to another person. Understanding this benchmark is crucial for anyone involved in an injury claim, whether as a claimant or a defendant.

In legal terms, the Ordinary Care Standard is interchangeable with other phrases, such as due care or reasonable care. It represents the level of caution and prudence that a typical, sensible person—the so-called ‘Reasonable Person’—would exercise under the exact same or similar circumstances. Failure to meet this standard is what constitutes a breach of duty, the core of a negligence claim.

The Hypothetical ‘Reasonable Person’: An Objective Standard

To grasp the Ordinary Care Standard, one must first understand the figure it is based upon: the ‘Reasonable Person.’ This figure is not a real individual, but a legal fiction crafted by the courts to ensure an objective measure of behavior.

The Objective Test: The standard is objective, meaning it does not take into account the specific mental or emotional characteristics of the actual defendant. For example, a person with below-average intelligence or someone who is naturally clumsy is still held to the same standard of care as a more careful or intelligent person. The law demands a certain minimum level of social conduct necessary for the general welfare of the community.

The Reasonable Person is: ordinary, prudent, and rational. They are presumed to be appropriately informed, aware of the law, and fair-minded. Critically, this hypothetical person is always vigilant and cautious, but not “unusually bold” or the “most cautious person”.

Case Example: Establishing Objective Unreasonableness

Historically, the objective nature of this standard was firmly established. In one famous English case, a farmer piled a haystack near his neighbor’s cottage. The haystack caught fire and burned the cottage down. The farmer argued that he genuinely did not foresee the risk. The court, however, held him liable because his actions were deemed objectively unreasonable; the jury found that a reasonable, prudent person would have known the risks associated with setting hay near a structure.

The Four Elements of Negligence and the Role of Ordinary Care

In a tort claim for negligence, the plaintiff must successfully prove four distinct elements. The Ordinary Care Standard is most relevant to the first two:

Elements of a Negligence Claim
Element	Definition
1. Duty of Care	The defendant owed a legal obligation to the plaintiff to act with ordinary care. This is often the general duty not to cause foreseeable harm to others.
2. Breach of Duty	The defendant failed to meet the Ordinary Care Standard—they acted in a way the Reasonable Person would not have, or failed to act when the Reasonable Person would have.
3. Causation	The defendant’s breach of duty was the direct and proximate (foreseeable) cause of the plaintiff’s injury.
4. Damages	The plaintiff suffered actual, measurable harm or loss, such as physical injury, emotional distress, or financial losses.

The standard of care is a dynamic concept that adapts to the circumstances of every case. A driver, for instance, has a duty to obey traffic laws and pay attention, which is the ordinary care expected in that situation. Failing to do so—such as running a red light—is a breach of the ordinary care standard.

Modifications to the Ordinary Care Standard

While the ‘Reasonable Person’ is the general rule, the law recognizes that a blanket standard is not always appropriate. There are two primary situations where the standard of care is modified:

1. The Professional Standard of Care (Higher Standard)

Individuals who hold themselves out as professionals are held to a significantly higher standard than the ordinary layperson. This is known as the Professional Standard of Care. For example, a Medical Expert is not judged by what an ordinary driver would do, but by the reasonable standard of a Medical Expert in their field.

Legal Expert Tip: Professional Liability

When assessing professional malpractice, the question shifts from “What would a reasonable person do?” to “What level of care, skill, and treatment is recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent similar service providers?”. This often requires expert testimony to establish what the accepted protocol or practice should have been, making these cases highly specialized.

This elevated duty is applied to a range of professions, including Legal Experts, Medical Experts, Financial Experts, engineers, and architects.

2. The Child Standard of Care (Lower Standard)

Children are generally not expected to possess the same level of judgment and prudence as adults. Therefore, courts apply a modified standard of care. A child’s actions are compared against the conduct of other children of the same age, experience, and intelligence.

Caution: Adult Activities Exception

Some jurisdictions apply the adult standard of care to children who engage in inherently dangerous activities typically reserved for adults, such as driving a car or operating heavy machinery. In such instances, the objective ‘Reasonable Person’ standard is used, regardless of the child’s age or immaturity, because of the high risk to public safety.

Summary: The Enduring Importance of Ordinary Care

The Ordinary Care Standard, in all its forms, is the bedrock of establishing fault and liability in civil disputes. It ensures that all members of society operate under a minimum level of conduct, preventing foreseeable harm. Its application—whether through the universal ‘Reasonable Person’ or the specialized ‘Professional Standard’—remains consistent in its goal: to hold individuals and entities accountable for careless behavior that results in injury or loss.

Key Takeaways on the Ordinary Care Standard

The Ordinary Care Standard, also called Due Care or Reasonable Care, is the legal benchmark for measuring a defendant’s conduct in a negligence lawsuit.
It is based on the hypothetical ‘Reasonable Person,’ a figure

geunim