Legal Standard of Care
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
A Legal Standard of Care is a degree of prudence that is required of an individual who is under a duty of care.
- Context:
- It can be criteria for evaluating reasonable actions in a given situation.
- Example(s):
- Counter-Example(s):
- See: Negligence, Duty of Care, Reasonable Person Standard, Vaughn v. Menlove, Trier of Fact, Reasonable Person, Clinical Best-Practice.
References
2023
- (Wikipedia, 2023) ⇒ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/standard_of_care Retrieved:2023-7-14.
- In tort law, the standard of care is the only degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care.
The requirements of the standard are closely dependent on circumstances.[1] Whether the standard of care has been breached is determined by the trier of fact, and is usually phrased in terms of the reasonable person; this is sometimes labeled as the "reasonable physician standard." It was famously described in Vaughn v. Menlove (1837) as whether the individual "proceed[ed] with such reasonable caution as a prudent man would have exercised under such circumstances".
- In tort law, the standard of care is the only degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care.
- ↑ "Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66". United States Reports. Supreme Court of the United States. 275: 66. October 31, 1927. In an action for negligence, the question of due care is not left to the jury when resolved by a clear standard of conduct which should be laid down by the courts.