Also known as: ordinary negligence doctrines · ordinary negligence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of tort liability requiring a defendant to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under the circumstances. Recovery follows when that failure proximately causes harm to a foreseeable plaintiff.
Otis Olsen, an unemancipated minor, suffered injury when his father Otto Osman allowed him to ride an ATV on the family property without a helmet. Otis sued Otto for failing to supervise the activity. The court evaluated whether the father failed to exercise the care a reasonably prudent parent would exercise under the circumstances and whether that failure proximately caused the injury.
Orion Technologies hired a contractor to spray herbicide on its fields. Wind carried the chemical onto Oliver Okeke's adjacent organic farm, destroying his crops. Oliver sued Orion for ordinary negligence in the timing and method of application. The court evaluated whether the company failed to exercise reasonable care given the forecasted wind conditions and the known risk to neighboring property.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Parental immunity bars an unemancipated minor from suing a parent for ordinary negligence that arises out of the exercise of parental authority, supervision, or discretion within the family relationship. The doctrine protects family harmony and parental autonomy. Limited exceptions have been recognized in later cases, but the core bar remains for routine supervisory decisions.
Supporting sources
Ordinary negligence requires proof that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. A trespasser, however, is liable for physical harm caused by any act done or condition created during the trespass even if the conduct would not otherwise qualify as negligence.
Supporting sources
Punitive damages are unavailable for ordinary negligence alone. They require proof of conduct that is more blameworthy, such as evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights or safety of others.
Supporting sources
…greater." (Prosser, Torts, supra , § 65, p. 426.) The thought is that the difference between willful and wanton misconduct and ordinary negligence is one of kind rather than degree in that the former involves conduct of an entirely different order,[^maj-21] and under this conception it might well be urged that comparative negligence…