Also known as: professionally diligent · standard of care · due care
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of conduct requiring a professional to exercise the care and skill that a reasonably competent person in the same field would apply under the circumstances, taking into account any specialized knowledge the actor purports to possess.
Ellie, a bus dispatcher, receives a direct report that a driver is exhausted after a double shift and that icy roads are forecast. She orders the driver to proceed anyway to avoid overtime costs. When the bus crashes and kills a passenger, Ellie's decision shows a gross deviation from the care a reasonable dispatcher would exercise under the circumstances.
Aerospace engineer Dale authorizes installation of rivets despite missing certificates of conformity that he knows are mandatory for safety-critical parts. A reasonable engineer in his position would have recognized the substantial risk of structural failure created by proceeding without verification.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Angela, the purchasing manager for a restaurant group, sees vague species labels on seafood deliveries but performs no further verification despite her industry experience. A person of ordinary experience and intelligence using due care in the same role would have investigated the risk of misidentification and allergens.
An auto dealership sells a new car whose airbag system is defective when it leaves the factory. The buyer is injured when the airbag fails to deploy. The absence of privity does not shield the manufacturer because it owes a duty of due care to any foreseeable user of the product.
A seventeen-year-old apprentice mechanic takes a repaired car for a high-speed test drive on a public highway and causes a collision that injures another motorist. Because the activity is an adult one, the apprentice is held to the ordinary reasonable-person standard rather than a reduced age-based standard.
Professional diligence measures conduct against the care a reasonably competent professional in the field would exercise, incorporating specialized knowledge and industry standards. Ordinary negligence uses the reasonable-person standard without that specialized overlay. The higher benchmark applies when the actor holds himself out as possessing particular skill or training.
No. Professional diligence is breached when the actor should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk yet failed to perceive it through a gross deviation from the standard a reasonable professional would observe. Conscious disregard defines recklessness, not negligence.
A gratuitous agent owes only the care and skill required of a non-agent performing a similar unpaid task. The commercial context and the agent's actual training may raise the standard, but the voluntary and informal nature of the undertaking typically keeps the duty at the ordinary non-professional level.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a minor engages in an adult activity such as driving on a public highway, the modern trend applies the ordinary reasonable-person standard rather than an age-adjusted one. The policy of protecting third parties from highway risks overrides the usual protection given to minors.