Also known as: standard of conduct · standards of conducts · code of conduct · professional standards
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A benchmark for behavior that a person must meet to avoid liability or to satisfy legal obligations. The benchmark is that of a reasonable or law-abiding person under like circumstances.
A benchmark for behavior that a person must meet to avoid liability or to satisfy legal obligations. The benchmark is that of a reasonable or law-abiding person under like circumstances.
Marshall, a loss-prevention officer, tackles a suspected shoplifter and continues stomping on the victim's chest after the victim cries out. Marshall knows stomping can cause serious harm yet persists despite visible distress and nearby customers. His conscious disregard of the substantial risk constitutes recklessness under the Model Penal Code.
The set of obligations that separate judgments would impose on the party opposing the class.
SwiftRide faces separate suits in multiple courts over its uniform policy excluding drivers with minor traffic violations. One court orders SwiftRide to bar all such drivers nationwide. Another court forbids any blanket exclusion for the same violations. The risk of these incompatible obligations supports certification of a mandatory class under Rule 23(b)(1)(A).
The set of obligations that separate judgments would impose on the party opposing the class.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Mark, a shift supervisor at Northern Stay resort, receives written instructions to hold Faith's luggage for her exclusive pickup. He releases the items to her estranged spouse without verification. A reasonable person in Mark's position would have confirmed authority before releasing the property.
Twelve-year-old Tommy darts backward without looking in a crowded resort pool area and knocks a tray of hot drinks onto Faith. A reasonable twelve-year-old in the same recreational setting would recognize the danger of sudden movement near hot beverages and would look first. Tommy's failure to do so falls below the child-adjusted standard.
Bellhop, who has a chronic wrist condition weakening his grip, stacks heavy suitcases on a cart and attempts to steer it down a sloped driveway. He loses control and the cart strikes Faith. Even accounting for the disability, a reasonable person with the same impairment would have recognized the unreliability of his grip on a slope and taken additional precautions.
Bernice, a partner in Coastal Charters, elects to depart on a charter despite a forecast of severe weather and an inoperable backup radio. The vessel sustains major damage requiring an expensive rescue. The known combination of forecast and equipment failure creates obvious risks that elevate the decision beyond ordinary professional judgment.
When the actor is a child the standard is that of a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience under like circumstances rather than the ordinary reasonable-person standard.
A physical disability adjusts the standard to that of a reasonable person under like disability, but the actor must still conform to that adjusted benchmark.
Conscious disregard constitutes recklessness when the risk is substantial and unjustifiable and its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.
Separate actions must create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class.
…arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or accomplishes no justifiable purpose, or is offensive to our own notions of "civilized standards of conduct."[^maj-16] Such an appraisal of the wisdom of legislation is an attribute of the power to make laws, not of the power to interpret them. The use by federal courts of such a formula or…