Ordinary negligence

Definition

Ordinary negligence refers to the failure to exercise the level of care that a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances, resulting in harm or injury to another party. This concept is a cornerstone of tort law, highlighting that individuals have a duty to act in a way that avoids causing foreseeable harm to others. Ordinary negligence is assessed based on what an average person would do or not do, making it a fundamental aspect of establishing liability in personal injury cases.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. To prove ordinary negligence, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant had a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused damages as a result.
2. Ordinary negligence cases often involve common situations, such as car accidents or slip and fall incidents, where the actions of the defendant directly affect another person's safety.
3. The standard for ordinary negligence is objective; it considers how a 'reasonable person' would have acted in similar circumstances, rather than the subjective beliefs or intentions of the defendant.
4. Comparative negligence can play a role in determining liability, where the court may reduce the amount of damages awarded based on the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to their injuries.
5. Defenses against claims of ordinary negligence include proving that there was no breach of duty or that the plaintiff assumed risk by engaging in certain activities.

Review Questions

• What elements must be established to prove a case of ordinary negligence?
  • To prove ordinary negligence, three key elements must be established: first, there must be a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; second, there must be a breach of that duty, demonstrating that the defendant did not act as a reasonably prudent person would; and third, there must be causation linking the breach directly to the plaintiff's injury or damages. This framework helps ensure accountability in situations where individuals fail to uphold their responsibility towards others.
• How does the concept of 'reasonable person' influence judgments in ordinary negligence cases?
  • The concept of a 'reasonable person' serves as an objective standard in ordinary negligence cases, guiding courts to evaluate whether a defendant's actions were appropriate under similar circumstances. This standard helps eliminate personal biases and focuses on societal expectations for behavior. When assessing if negligence occurred, courts consider how an average person would react, making it essential for understanding liability and ensuring fairness in judgments.
• Evaluate how comparative negligence affects liability and damages awarded in ordinary negligence claims.
  • Comparative negligence plays a crucial role in determining liability and potential damages in ordinary negligence claims by allowing courts to assess the degree of fault attributed to both parties involved. If the plaintiff is found partially responsible for their injuries, their awarded damages may be reduced proportionately based on their level of fault. This evaluation fosters an equitable resolution by recognizing shared responsibility, thus allowing for more just outcomes in personal injury cases.

Related terms

duty of care:

The legal obligation to adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.

breach of duty:

A violation of the duty of care, which can be established by showing that a person's actions fell short of what a reasonable person would do.

causation: The establishment of a direct link between a defendant's breach of duty and the injury suffered by the plaintiff.