Standard of care

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".

^ "Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66". United States Reports. 275. Supreme Court of the United States: 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.

[275_U.S._66-1] "Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66". United States Reports. 275. Supreme Court of the United States: 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.

[1]