Also known as: highest degree of care · highest standard of care · utmost care · highest duty of care
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A heightened standard of care that requires a defendant to exercise the utmost caution and take every feasible precaution to prevent harm to others. This standard exceeds ordinary reasonable care and has historically applied to actors such as common carriers, though some jurisdictions have abandoned it in favor of the reasonable person standard.
Harold Hunt keeps a tiger on his property and installs reinforced enclosures along with constant monitoring to meet the highest degree of care standard. The tiger nonetheless escapes and injures Hector Hernandez. Hunt remains liable even though he exercised utmost care to prevent the harm.
Hugo Hart owns a border collie that previously nipped a worker and keeps the dog despite that history. Hart provides training and fencing to satisfy the highest degree of care standard, yet the dog bites Heidi Henderson. Hart is liable because the animal's abnormal propensity was known.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Harmony Retail hires a firm to aerially apply pesticides and posts warnings plus advises neighbors to stay indoors. The firm follows every available safety step to meet the highest degree of care standard, but wind shifts the spray onto Hiroshi Hasegawa. The firm remains liable for harm from the abnormally dangerous activity.
Halcyon Motors operates a shuttle and claims it met the highest degree of care standard by inspecting vehicles daily and training drivers extensively. A passenger is injured when a driver misses a known mechanical defect. The company faces liability because the standard demands more than ordinary precautions.
Hammer Construction conducts blasting near a mill and implements every known safety measure to satisfy the highest degree of care standard. Vibrations nonetheless damage Foster's nearby property. The company is liable without regard to the precautions taken.
Hakeem Harris drives a bus that loses brakes on a hill and must choose between two dangerous paths. He selects the route that appears least harmful while claiming compliance with the highest degree of care standard. A jury may still find negligence if the choice was unreasonable under the circumstances.
No. Ordinary negligence requires only reasonable care under the circumstances, not the utmost care that would eliminate every conceivable risk. Requiring the highest degree of care would convert negligence into something closer to strict liability, which is not the rule.
Many jurisdictions have abandoned it. Courts now apply the ordinary reasonable person standard even to common carriers rather than imposing a special heightened duty.
It does not provide a defense. A possessor of a wild animal remains liable for harm even after exercising the utmost care to confine the animal or prevent injury.
No. Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities attaches even when the actor has exercised the utmost care, whereas the highest degree of care standard historically described a negligence duty rather than strict liability.
…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,…