Also known as: duties of reasonable care · duty of care · reasonable care standard
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
An obligation to exercise the care a reasonably prudent person would use under like circumstances. The obligation extends only to plaintiffs within the zone of reasonably foreseeable risk created by the defendant's conduct.
An obligation to exercise the care a reasonably prudent person would use under like circumstances. The obligation extends only to plaintiffs within the zone of reasonably foreseeable risk created by the defendant's conduct.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The obligation of a partner or member in a partnership or limited liability company to refrain from grossly negligent or reckless conduct, willful or intentional misconduct, or knowing violation of law when managing the entity's affairs.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The obligation of a partner or member in a partnership or limited liability company to refrain from grossly negligent or reckless conduct, willful or intentional misconduct, or knowing violation of law when managing the entity's affairs.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Devon Drake operated a construction crane near a busy sidewalk. A cable snapped and a load fell, injuring pedestrian Darrell Duncan who stood outside the immediate work zone. Because a reasonable crane operator would not have foreseen risk to someone in Duncan's position, no duty of reasonable care ran to him.
Decker Electronics negligently stored chemicals near a residential area, creating a risk of fright that could cause bodily harm. A nearby resident suffered a heart attack solely from shock upon learning of the danger. Liability attached even though the harm occurred through internal fright alone.
Duffy Construction consulted an attorney about a potential contract claim. The lawyer gave advice during the meeting and the company reasonably relied on it. When the lawyer failed to follow up, allowing the statute of limitations to expire, the company sued for breach of the duty of reasonable care.
No. The duty runs only to plaintiffs within the zone of reasonably foreseeable risk at the time of the negligent act. A defendant owes no duty to an unforeseeable plaintiff even if injury actually occurs.
Supporting sources
Derek Douglas, managing member of Desert Oil LLC, received a report that buried drums likely held toxic waste requiring certified transport. He directed on-site reburial and instructed staff to skip paperwork. The limited partners sued, alleging breach of the duty of reasonable care.
Doris Duffy and Dwight Dorsey formed a limited partnership. Their agreement attempted to eliminate the general partner's duty of reasonable care for all operational choices. The court held the clause unenforceable because the statute permits alteration only within narrow statutory bounds.
Dorothy Daniels and Dover Bank partners agreed that no partner would face liability for negligent navigation decisions. When a vessel was damaged during a storm, the court refused to enforce the clause because the statute bars elimination of the duty of reasonable care.
The duty is breached only by grossly negligent or reckless conduct, willful or intentional misconduct, or knowing violation of law. Ordinary negligence alone does not violate the statutory standard.
Supporting sources
No. The statute prohibits alteration or elimination of the duty of care except in limited circumstances that still bar authorization of bad faith, willful misconduct, or knowing violations of law.
Supporting sources
…N. Y. 78). The charge is one, not of fraud, but of negligence. The question to be determined is whether the defendant owed a duty of care and vigilance to any one but the immediate purchaser. The foundations of this branch of the law, at least in this state, were laid in Thomas v. Winchester (6 N. Y. 397). A poison was…