Legal Definitions - standard of care

The standard of care is a fundamental legal principle used to determine if someone acted negligently and is therefore responsible for harm caused to another person. It defines the level of caution and competence that a reasonable individual, or a reasonable professional in a specific field, would exercise in a given situation. If a person's actions fall below this expected standard and directly cause injury or loss, they may be held legally liable for negligence.

Generally, the standard of care is measured against what a "reasonable person" would do. This hypothetical reasonable person is not perfect, but is considered to be an average, prudent individual who acts with common sense and ordinary caution under similar circumstances.

However, this standard can vary depending on the individual and the situation:

• For children, the standard is typically adjusted to what a reasonable child of the same age, intelligence, and experience would do.
• For professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, or engineers, a higher and more specialized standard applies. They are expected to act with the knowledge, skill, and care that a reasonably prudent member of their profession would demonstrate in similar circumstances.

Here are some examples illustrating the standard of care:

• Example 1: Homeowner's Responsibility

  Imagine a homeowner who knows their front porch steps are loose and wobbly. Despite this, they neglect to repair them for several months. A delivery person, unaware of the hazard, uses the steps, falls, and breaks an ankle. The homeowner's failure to fix the known dangerous condition would likely be considered a breach of the standard of care. A reasonable homeowner would have either repaired the steps or warned visitors about the danger, demonstrating ordinary caution to prevent foreseeable harm.

• Example 2: Professional Financial Advice

  Consider a certified financial advisor who recommends a highly speculative investment to a client, knowing the client is elderly, risk-averse, and relies solely on their pension for income. The advisor fails to adequately explain the significant risks involved or explore more suitable, conservative options. When the investment loses a substantial amount of money, the advisor's actions could be judged against the professional standard of care for financial advisors. A reasonably prudent financial advisor would have conducted a thorough risk assessment, prioritized the client's financial security, and recommended investments appropriate for their specific circumstances, not just those that might yield high commissions.

• Example 3: Child's Playtime Accident

  During a school recess, an eight-year-old child, playing a game of tag, excitedly runs around a corner without looking and collides with another child, causing them to fall and scrape their knee. In evaluating whether the eight-year-old was negligent, the standard of care would be what a reasonable eight-year-old, with similar maturity and experience, would do while playing tag. It's generally understood that young children might not always exercise the same level of foresight or caution as an adult. If the child's actions were typical for an eight-year-old engaged in play, it might not be considered a breach of their age-appropriate standard of care, even though an adult might have avoided the collision.