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".
Such a test (known as the "Bolam Test") was used to determine whether a doctor was liable for medical malpractice before the 2015 UK Supreme Court decision of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board which introduced further responsibilities on the doctor, echoed in similar judgements in other jurisdictions.
The standard of care is important because it can determine the level of negligence required to state a valid cause of action.
Diagnostic and treatment process that a clinician should follow for a certain type of patient, illness, or clinical circumstance.
[2] Medical standards of care exist for many conditions, including diabetes,[3] some cancers,[4] and sexual abuse.
[5] Failure to provide patients treatment that meets a standard of care can incur legal liability for any injury or death that results.
A special standard of care also applies to children, who, in a majority of jurisdictions, are held to the behavior that is reasonable for a child of similar age, experience, and intelligence under like circumstances.
2d 128, 294 N.Y.S.2d 628 (1968 (playing golf)) What constitutes an "adult standard" may depend on local statute, and some have arbitrary age distinctions.
(Roberts v. State of Louisiana, 396 So.2d 566 (1981) (blind postal employee)) However, courts do not recognize a person with a mental disability to be subject to any such special standard, and are held to the "reasonable prudent person" standard, except when the onset of mental illness is unforeseeable and sudden (e.g., Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co., 45 Wis.2d 536, 173 N.W.2d 619 (1970) (sudden hallucinations while driving).)
Physical disabilities and conditions, such as blindness, deafness, short stature, or a club foot, or the weaknesses of age or sex, are treated merely as part of the "circumstances" under which a reasonable man must act.
A person engaged in a special and potentially dangerous activity must know or inquire of possible hazards or of any special duties and responsibilities inherent in that activity that might affect their ability to exercise reasonable prudent caution (cf, Delair v. McAdoo, 324 Pa. 392, 188 A.
As Justice Holmes classic statement expresses it, "What usually is done may be evidence of what ought to be done, but what ought to be done is fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether it is complied with or not."
A person of substandard intelligence is held under common law to the same standard of a reasonable prudent person, to encourage them to exert a decreased effort of responsibility to their community, in light of their handicap, and as a result of the practical difficulty of proving what reduced standard should apply (Vaughn v. Menlove, 3 Bing.
n (noting that the "reasonable person" standard makes allowances for age and physical disability but not "attention, perception, memory, knowledge of other pertinent matters, intelligence, and judgment.
The law takes no account of the infinite varieties of temperament, intellect, and education which make the internal character of a given act so different in different men.
"[7] An attorney is held to the standard that any reasonable attorney in possession of the same knowledge and skill that an ordinary member of his or her profession possesses, as long as he is acting with reasonable care and diligence, in good faith and honest belief that his advice and acts are well founded at the time.
In Cordas v. Peerless Taxi Company, 27 N.Y.S.2d 198 (1941), Justice Carlin held that a taxicab driver hijacked at gunpoint by a fleeing mugger in New York City may be excused from negligence for jumping out of the moving taxicab to save his own life, leaving the cab on an unguided trajectory towards bystanders.
In balancing risks to establish a reasonable person's standard of ordinary care, the calculus of negligence establishes that the probability of the harm potentially caused (P) must be balanced along with the gravity of the harm which could result (G), against the burden of conforming to a new and less dangerous course of action (B) along with the utility of maintaining the same course of action as it was (U).
In the Hospitality industries, the standard of care is higher, as the Innkeeper is expected to seek out potential danger and prevent it. "