YOUR RIGHTS ON NEGLIGENCE: STANDARD OF CARE

[Olajire Deborah]

Standard of Care

The second condition that must be met before you can establish a case of negligence is that the defendant who owed you that duty of care is under obligation to maintain a standard of care. When we talk of standard of care, it will depend on the particular situation and the standards required are always different from one situation to another. For instance, the standard of care expected from the producer of food and drinks may be higher than the standard of care expected from the producer of items like bags, shoes, etc. The standard of care expected of a laborer is different from that expected of a professional, and so on and so forth.

But there is a generally accepted standard of care in all situations. First, it is assumed that the defendant is an adult of normal intelligence with an average knowledge and common sense in all day-to-day activities or in his professed skill or profession. Secondly, it is assumed that the defendant is equally aware of or should be able to foresee the danger of his action or omission. For instance, a driver of a car who drives against traffic must have known that it is wrong to do so and that an accident may result from such an act. Once he is an adult, he is expected to know that such action amounts to reckless driving. Further, he should know or be able to foresee that such action can result in danger or injury to another road user. In this instance, he is expected to maintain the standard of care in driving his car in such a way that will not result in danger or injuries to others.

Let me tell you that it is important to determine the standard of care in every situation, before you can determine if the defendant has breached that standard of care and, therefore, liable in negligence. We shall talk discuss about the breach of duty later. But the standard of care is normally measured by the ability of a normal reasonable man to foresee the danger of his actions or omissions. To determine whether another person is negligent, the law will not look at that individual to consider his ideology or idiosyncrasies. But his conduct must be such that any other reasonable person in his situation will not normally undertake. For example, let us assume that a patient being treated in a hospital is in urgent need of blood transfusion. But the medical doctor who is treating him is a member of a religious sect which does not believe in or permit such blood transfusion. If the patient dies as a result of this lack of blood, the doctor may be held liable in negligence because any other medical doctor in his situation is expected to foresee that the patient may die because of lack of blood. The doctor may not be permitted in law to say he refused the transfusion because his religion forbade it. He owes his patient a duty and his standard of care is to treat him as far as his professional competence permits.
In the same vein, a vehicle owner whose car broke down on the highway is under a duty of care to other road users. The standard of care in such a situation is that he must try as much as he can to display the caution sign at a safe distance from the broken down vehicle in order to warn other road users, and then move the vehicle as much as he can to prevent obstruction or injury to others. The standard of care which the law stipulates for such a person is that he must be able to foresee that the broken down vehicle may cause injuries or harm to others. So, he is under a duty to ensure that the standard of care is maintained as far as other road users are concerned. The law is not concerned whether it is a small or large vehicle. It does not even matter that you are not the owner of the vehicle, so long as you are the driver or the person in charge.

Similarly, there is a standard of care for all sellers of foods and drinks to maintain, which is that their food or drinks must not be injurious to their consumers’ health. Hence, the producer of food or drinks is under a duty of care to ensure that the food or drink he is selling to third parties are not poisonous, contaminated or expired. The law places a duty of care on him to ensure that the consumers of his foods and drinks are not harmed by consuming them. The proprietors of food canteens, restaurants or fast food outlets must maintain a standard of care to all their customers to ensure that all items sold are fit for human consumption. They are under a duty not to sell stale or adulterated items that may be injurious to the health of the consumers.

[Author]

Posts