Also known as: legal duties of care · duty of care
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A legal obligation requiring a person to exercise reasonable care in conduct that foreseeably affects others. The obligation arises from relationships, statutes, or undertakings that place one party in a position to cause harm if care is not taken. Breach of the obligation supports liability when it proximately causes injury to a protected plaintiff.
Lance Lee operated heavy machinery near a public walkway. A falling load struck Lucy Liu, who stood outside the immediate work zone but within the area a reasonable operator would recognize as exposed to risk. Lucy sued Lance for her injuries. The court held Lance owed her a duty because she was a foreseeable plaintiff within the zone of danger created by his conduct.
Lena Lawson served as a member-manager of Lakeshore Industries. She approved a high-risk investment without reviewing financial data or consulting experts. The investment failed and caused substantial losses. The other members sued Lena. The court measured her conduct against the gross-negligence standard that defines the duty of care for member-managed LLCs.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Lucia Lopez and Lily Lopez formed a limited partnership to operate a marina. Their agreement attempted to eliminate all liability for ordinary negligence by general partners. A later dispute arose over a docking accident caused by careless maintenance. The court refused to enforce the clause because the statute prohibits altering or eliminating the duty of care except in narrowly permitted ways.
Legacy Motors operated as a general partnership between two owners. Their agreement purported to remove liability for any negligent operational decision. One partner’s careless inventory handling caused inventory loss. The court held the clause unenforceable because the statute bars elimination of the duty of care outside the limited exceptions provided.
Laura Lewis negligently operated a crane that nearly struck a nearby worker. The worker suffered severe emotional distress that triggered a heart attack even though no physical contact occurred. The worker sued for the resulting bodily harm. The court applied the rule that a defendant remains liable when negligent conduct violates a duty designed to protect against fright that carries an unreasonable risk of bodily injury.
Lotus Pharmaceuticals consulted attorney Landmark Realty about a potential product-liability claim. The attorney gave preliminary advice and agreed to investigate further but never followed up. The statute of limitations expired. Lotus sued the attorney for malpractice. The court recognized that an attorney-client relationship and its attendant duty of care can arise from the consultation and reasonable reliance even without a formal retainer.
The duty requires members to refrain from grossly negligent or reckless conduct, willful or intentional misconduct, or knowing violation of law. Ordinary negligence does not breach the duty. Courts apply this gross-negligence floor when evaluating member conduct during company operations or winding up.
Supporting sources
No. The statute prohibits altering or eliminating the duty of care except in the narrow circumstances listed in the act. Any clause attempting wholesale elimination of liability for negligent acts is unenforceable. Partners may prescribe reasonable standards for measuring performance of the duty but cannot remove it entirely.
Supporting sources
An attorney-client relationship and its attendant duties can form during an initial consultation if the lawyer gives legal advice and the prospective client reasonably relies on it. The duty exists even without a formal retainer or fee. Liability can follow if the lawyer fails to follow up and allows the statute of limitations to run.
Supporting sources
…civil liability. Commonwealth v. Godin, supra at 126-127. The Commonwealth claims that the defendants owed an affirmative duty of care to their son which they wantonly or recklessly failed to perform. The duty to provide sufficient support for a child is legally enforceable in a civil proceeding against a parent. See…