Also known as: ordinary negligence doctrines · ordinary negligence
Written by attorneys — see sources 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.
Oluf and Debra Johnson are organic farmers in central Minnesota whose fields are certified under the National Organic Program. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company is a member-owned provider that applies pesticides to conventional farm fields adjacent to the Johnsons' property. In June 2007 the Johnsons filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture alleging pesticide drift onto one of their transitional soybean fields. On June 15, 2007, winds of 9 to 21 miles per hour carried Status (diflufenzopyr and dicamba) and Roundup Original (glyphosate) from the Cooperative's spraying of a neighboring conventional field onto the Johnsons' soybeans. MDA testing detected dicamba below detection levels but no diflufenzopyr or glyphosate. The MDA nevertheless directed the Johnsons to plow down approximately 10 acres of the crop because of visual damage and the presence of dicamba. The Johnsons also notified their certifying agent, the Organic Crop Improvement Association. An August 27, 2007 OCIA letter stated that chemical drift may have occurred and that, if contamination were confirmed, the field would have to return to the beginning of the 36-month transition period. The Johnsons therefore restarted the three-year transition for that soybean field. In July 2008 the Johnsons reported a second incident in which Roundup Power Max and Select Max (glyphosate and clethodim) drifted onto a transitional alfalfa field. MDA testing found minimal glyphosate. On August 1, 2008, they reported a third incident involving Lorsban Advanced (chlorpyrifos) on the same alfalfa field. Testing again showed minimal residue. The MDA concluded that drift from the Cooperative's applications caused both positive results. The Johnsons took the alfalfa field out of organic production for an additional three years. The Johnsons sued the Cooperative for trespass, nuisance, negligence per se, and battery, claiming economic losses from the three-year transition periods, destruction of the soybean crop, increased weeding and reporting burdens, and adverse health effects to Oluf Johnson. They also sought a permanent injunction barring spraying within a half mile of their fields. The district court granted summary judgment to the Cooperative on all claims and denied the Johnsons' motion to amend the complaint to add the 2008 incidents. The court of appeals reversed in part. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted the Cooperative's petition for review.
View caseParental 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, and under this conception it might well be urged that comparative negligence…