Also known as: standard of care · standards-of-care · duty of care
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An objective benchmark of conduct that a reasonable person or fiduciary would exercise under the circumstances presented. The benchmark requires awareness of substantial and unjustifiable risks and avoidance of gross deviations from expected behavior. It supplies the measure for determining breach in negligence, criminal negligence, and fiduciary duty claims.
Simone Sanders left her loaded handgun on a kitchen table while hosting a party. A guest's child picked up the weapon and fatally shot another child. Prosecutors charged Sanders with involuntary manslaughter on the theory that her failure to secure the firearm constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe.
Skylar Sullivan operated a forklift in a crowded warehouse without checking the backup alarm. A coworker walked behind the machine and was struck. The state charged Sullivan with negligent homicide, alleging that a reasonable person in her position would have perceived the substantial risk created by the unverified alarm.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sofia Stern left a heavy crate balanced on a loading dock ledge. The crate fell and struck Sylvia Santos, who was standing on the sidewalk below. Santos sued for negligence. The court measured Stern's conduct against the standard of care a reasonable person would have observed and found no breach because the risk was not one a reasonable person would have perceived.
Silverline Industries operated as a member-managed LLC. Member Selena Singh approved a major contract without reviewing the financial projections or consulting counsel. The transaction produced large losses. The other members sued Singh, claiming her conduct amounted to gross negligence that violated the statutory duty of care.
Sterling Dynamics formed a limited partnership. The agreement attempted to eliminate the general partner's duty of care for all ordinary decisions. A limited partner challenged the clause after the general partner made a grossly negligent investment. The court held the provision unenforceable because the statute prohibits complete elimination of the duty of care.
Stonehaven Properties operated as a general partnership. Its agreement purported to shield partners from liability for negligent management decisions. After one partner's careless oversight caused substantial losses, the others sued. The court refused to enforce the clause, ruling that the statute forbids alteration or elimination of the duty of care.
Ordinary negligence measures conduct against a reasonable person standard. Criminal negligence requires a gross deviation from that standard that creates a high risk of death or serious bodily harm. The higher threshold distinguishes involuntary manslaughter from civil liability.
The actor must have failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The failure must constitute a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation, taking into account the nature and purpose of the conduct.
No. Uniform acts prohibit partnership agreements from altering or eliminating the duty of care except in narrowly defined circumstances involving good faith. Attempts to waive liability for grossly negligent conduct are unenforceable.
Yes. The uniform act sets the duty of care at the level of refraining from grossly negligent or reckless conduct, willful misconduct, or knowing violations of law. Ordinary negligence does not breach the statutory standard.
…to understand what is constitutionally wrong with assessing punitive damages to deter a publisher from departing from those standards of care ordinarily followed in the publishing industry, particularly if common-law malice is also shown. I note also the questionable premise that "juries assess punitive damages in wholly…