Also known as: highest degrees of care · utmost care · highest standard of care
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of care requiring the degree of caution commensurate with the danger involved in the activity or relationship. This standard exceeds ordinary reasonable care.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Hudson Partners maintains a private wildlife preserve featuring a tiger enclosure surrounded by reinforced fencing and daily inspections. Despite these measures, the tiger escapes and injures a neighboring farmer's livestock. The preserve owner faces liability even though the utmost precautions were taken.
Harold Hunt keeps a pit bull that previously attacked a delivery person. Hunt installs a stronger leash and warning signs, yet the dog breaks free and bites a guest at a backyard gathering. Liability attaches regardless of the additional safeguards employed.
Harbor Shipping operates a chemical processing facility using high-pressure reactors that can release fumes. After an unexpected valve failure, toxic gas drifts onto adjacent property and harms a worker. The company remains liable despite having installed state-of-the-art safety systems and conducted regular maintenance.
Hassan Hakim boards a city transit bus that brakes abruptly to avoid a pedestrian. The force throws Hakim against a pole, causing a concussion. The transit authority must meet the heightened standard because it accepted passengers for hire.
Hyun Han rides a ski lift at a mountain resort when a cable slips due to ice buildup. Han falls and fractures his leg. The resort must exercise the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation of the lift to protect riders.
Harmony Retail ships dynamite by truck through a residential area. A minor collision causes detonation that damages nearby homes. The shipper faces liability under the elevated standard because the activity involves inherent danger even when all feasible precautions are observed.
The highest degree of care requires a level of caution commensurate with the specific danger involved, such as that owed by common carriers to passengers or by those handling explosives. Ordinary reasonable care measures conduct against what a prudent person would do in similar circumstances. Courts apply the higher standard when the relationship or activity creates elevated risks that ordinary care would not adequately address.
No. In strict liability contexts involving wild animals or abnormally dangerous activities, liability attaches even when the defendant has exercised the utmost care to prevent harm. The standard functions as a negligence benchmark in carrier and dangerous-instrumentality cases but does not serve as a defense under the Restatement rules for wild animals or abnormally dangerous activities.
…to liability for harm to the person, land or chattels of another resulting from the activity, although he has exercised the utmost care to prevent such harm. (2) Such strict liability is limited to the kind of harm, the risk of which makes the activity abnormally dangerous. As to what constitutes an abnormal activity,…
…238, 251 (1984).[^maj-25] Moreover, this history emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care
…miscarriage of the activity for harm resulting thereto from that which makes the activity ultra-hazardous, although the utmost care
…to liability for harm to the person, land or chattels of another resulting from the activity, although he has exercised the utmost care
Courts impose the standard on common carriers responsible for passenger safety and on actors dealing with special dangers such as explosives or high-voltage electricity. The duty arises from the acceptance of a special responsibility or the inherent risk of the activity, requiring more than ordinary prudence to protect others.
No. The standard demands the degree of care that very careful and prudent persons would exercise under the circumstances, not an idealized or error-free performance. Jury instructions using the phrase have been upheld when they reflect this practical, context-specific expectation rather than an impossible absolute.