parent nodes: 42 USC 1983 | bailment | Calabresi corollary | character | Coase Theorem | contributory negligence | custom | Dellwo v Pearson | Duty | Erie RR v Tompkins | Hand Formula | Intentional Torts | malpractice | Negligence Torts | Peet v Roth Hotel | purpose of corporation
standard of care
Doctrinal definition
Unless the actor is a child, the standard of conduct who which he must conform to avoid being negligent is that of a reasonable man under like circumstances.
Rest 2d Torts 283
Risks and precautions
A a reasonable person is held not to impose unreasonable risks on others. [US v Carroll Towing]; see generally Hand Formula.
A level of care based off custom is less likely negligent the less readily apparent or forseeable the danger from an activity. [Ellis v Louisville and Nashville Ry] (NL where railroad workman got silicosis from breathing in railroad-caused dust over his career); cf [MacDougall v Pennsylvania Power] (L for injuries from unguarded fuse box on roof).
Economic considerations
Defendants should take the same level of care regardless of whether their activity is governed by a negligence standard or by a strict liability standard. However, a negligence standard will have redistributional effects, so that for example wealth will be shifted from high-risk activites to low-risk activites. A negligence standard may also impose location effects on activities. See Calabresi corollary to the Coase Theorem.
Where parties to an accident are involved in a contractual relationship, or in a market more generally, the customary standard of care is more likely to be a reasonable level of care. Rodi Yachts v National Marine.
Special circumstances
custom
per se negligence
res ipsa
Standards for special defendants
Note that special standards often apply for plaintiffs who may be barred from recovery by their own contributory negligence.
Downward depatures
An insane defendant is held to the same standard of care as a sane defendant. [Williams v Hays] (L where shipwreck caused by poisoned, exhausted captain); cf Polmatier v Russ (insanity no bar to forming intent necessary for battery or other intentional torts.
Likewise, a defendant of below-average intelligence is held to the same standard as a man of average intelligence. [Vaughn v Menlove] (L where stupid man put a chimney in a haystack, causing fire on another's property). However, where a negligent stupid or retarded person is in a contractual relationship with someone else of average intelligence, that average person is more likely to be held liable for injuries caused to the retarded or stupid person. [Lynch v Rosenthal] (L to farmowner where retarded employee hurt by walking too close to thresher).
Holmes argued that downward-departing defendants should be held to a lower standards where their defects were "distinct," that is, where others could more easily recognize their disability and act accordingly.
Upward departures
A defendant may be held to a higher standard of care based off his superior abilities, especially if he is in [privity] with the injured party. Rest 2d Torts 289 (L where physician fails to diagnose his child's illness, causing others to be infected); cf. [Fredericks v Castora] (NL where plaintiff hit in car accident by two professional truck-drivers).
Because physical infirmities are more "distinct" and harder to fake, a person with a physical disability is typically held to the standard of a reasonable man with his condition. In other words, he is required to use as much due care is possible under his condition. [Kerr v Connecticut Co] (NL where deaf man walks too close to trolley, gets run over); cf [Davis v Feinstein] (L where blind man falls into manhole)
Minors may be held to a reduced level of care depending on their age and their activity, whereas an elderly person will be held to the usual standard of care. [Roberts v Ring] (L where 77 yo runs over 7 yo playing in street). Elderly people may better recognize their inabilities and accordingly adjust their activity level and standard of care.
Additionally, below a certain threshold (ex. 7 years' age), a minor may be incapable of tort liability. [Dunn v Teti] (NL where 6 yo injures another 6 yo).
A minor that participates in an activity usually performed by adults will be held to an adult standard of care, especially if that activity is dangerous. At the same time, participation in a dangerous activity does not in itself require an adult standard of care, if minors often participate in that activity. [Purtle v Shelton] (NL where 17 yo shot 16 yo while hunting). Additionally, a minor is more likely to be held to an adult standard of care where his adult activity affects third parties that cannot tell the minor's age. Dellwo v Pearson (L where 12 yo injured adult in speedboating accident),.
[alias: degree of care]
[icon: flag]