The Standard of Care in Negligence

So, you’ve heard the term ‘standard of care negligence’ thrown around, maybe in a legal drama or a news report. It sounds pretty serious, and it is. Basically, it’s about whether someone acted like a reasonably careful person would in a similar situation. When they don’t, and someone gets hurt because of it, that’s where things get complicated. This whole concept is central to understanding how negligence claims work and what it takes to prove someone messed up and caused harm.

Key Takeaways

• The standard of care negligence means you have to act reasonably, like most people would, to avoid hurting others.
• To win a negligence case, you usually need to show there was a duty to be careful, that duty was broken, and that broken duty actually caused harm.
• What’s considered ‘reasonable’ can change depending on the situation and who’s involved, like a doctor or a manufacturer.
• Even if someone was negligent, the person who got hurt might have also been careless, which can affect how much they can recover.
• Sometimes, people are held responsible for others’ negligence, like an employer for their employee’s mistakes, even if they didn’t do anything wrong themselves.

Understanding The Standard Of Care Negligence

When we talk about negligence, we’re really talking about someone messing up and causing harm because they weren’t careful enough. It’s not about someone being intentionally mean or malicious; it’s about a failure to act with a certain level of caution that society expects. This expected level of caution is what we call the ‘standard of care.’

Defining The Standard Of Care

So, what exactly is this standard of care? Think of it as the benchmark for how a reasonably prudent person would act in a similar situation. It’s not about being perfect, but about being sensible. If your actions, or lack of actions, fall below this sensible level, and someone gets hurt as a result, you might be found negligent. It’s a pretty flexible concept because what’s considered ‘reasonable’ can change depending on the circumstances.

The Role Of Reasonableness In Negligence

Reasonableness is the heart of the standard of care. The law asks: would a person of ordinary prudence have acted the same way under the same or similar circumstances? If the answer is no, then the conduct likely fell below the required standard. This isn’t about what you thought was reasonable, but what an objective, hypothetical ‘reasonable person’ would have done. This objective standard helps keep things fair and predictable in legal disputes.

Foreseeability Of Harm

Another big piece of the puzzle is foreseeability. For someone to be held liable for negligence, the harm that occurred generally had to be something that could have been reasonably foreseen. If an accident happens in a way that no one could have possibly predicted, even with the utmost care, then it’s less likely to be considered negligence. It’s about whether the risk of harm was something a reasonable person would have been aware of and guarded against.

Here’s a quick breakdown:

• Duty: Did the person owe a duty of care to the injured party?
• Breach: Did their conduct fall below the expected standard of care?
• Causation: Did that breach directly lead to the injury?
• Damages: Did the injured party suffer actual harm or loss?

Understanding these elements is key to grasping how negligence claims work in practice. It’s a careful balance of actions, expectations, and consequences.

Establishing Duty Of Care In Negligence Claims

Defining The Standard Of Care

In the world of negligence, the first thing you have to figure out is whether one person owed another a duty of care. It sounds simple, but it’s the bedrock of any negligence claim. Basically, a duty of care is a legal obligation that requires someone to act in a certain way to avoid causing harm to others. Think of it like this: if your actions could reasonably hurt someone else, you generally have a duty to be careful. This isn’t about being perfect; it’s about being reasonably careful. The law doesn’t expect you to predict every single possible bad thing that could happen, but it does expect you to take sensible precautions against risks that are foreseeable.

The Role Of Reasonableness In Negligence

So, what does "reasonably careful" even mean? This is where the "reasonable person" standard comes in. Imagine a hypothetical person who is always sensible, cautious, and aware of their surroundings. The law asks: how would this reasonable person have acted in the same situation? If your conduct falls short of what this reasonable person would have done, you’ve likely breached your duty of care. It’s a flexible standard, meaning what’s reasonable can change depending on the circumstances. For instance, driving a car in a snowstorm requires a different level of care than driving on a sunny day.

Foreseeability Of Harm

Another big piece of the puzzle is foreseeability. You generally only owe a duty of care regarding harms that you could reasonably foresee. If something completely unexpected and bizarre happens, and you couldn’t have possibly seen it coming, it’s less likely you’ll be held responsible. The law focuses on the risks that are probable or likely, not the ones that are remote or outlandish. This concept helps limit liability to situations where the defendant’s actions had a connection to the harm that a reasonable person could have anticipated.

Here’s a quick breakdown of how these ideas connect:

• Duty of Care: The legal obligation to act with reasonable caution.
• Reasonableness: Measured against how a hypothetical "reasonable person" would act.
• Foreseeability: The harm must be a risk that could have been reasonably anticipated.

If these elements aren’t present, it’s tough to establish that a duty of care even existed in the first place, and without that, a negligence claim usually can’t move forward. It’s all about setting a baseline for how people should interact to keep each other safe.

Breach Of The Standard Of Care

So, you’ve got this idea of a ‘standard of care’ in negligence cases. It’s basically what a reasonably careful person would do in a similar situation. But what happens when someone doesn’t meet that standard? That’s where a breach comes in. It’s the core of a negligence claim – the moment where someone’s actions, or lack thereof, fall short of what’s expected, and that failure leads to harm.

Conduct Falling Below Required Standards

This is the meat and potatoes of a breach. It’s about looking at what someone actually did and comparing it to what they should have done. Did they act like a normal, sensible person would? If not, that’s a potential breach. It’s not about perfection; it’s about reasonable prudence. Think about a driver who’s speeding excessively in a school zone. A reasonable driver would slow down, but this person didn’t. That’s conduct falling below the required standard.

Omissions And Acts Of Negligence

Breaches aren’t just about doing something wrong; they can also be about not doing something you were supposed to do. These are called omissions. For example, a store owner might have a duty to keep their floors dry. If they know there’s a spill and do nothing about it, that’s an omission that could lead to a breach. On the flip side, an act of negligence is when someone actively does something that a reasonable person wouldn’t. Like that speeding driver again – that’s an act. Both active mistakes and failures to act can result in liability.

Proving A Breach Of Duty

Okay, so how do you actually prove someone breached their duty? It’s not always straightforward. You need to show that the defendant’s conduct was unreasonable under the circumstances. This often involves presenting evidence about what happened, what the defendant did or didn’t do, and what a reasonable person would have done instead. Sometimes, expert testimony is needed, especially in professional negligence cases, to establish what the proper standard of care was and how it was violated. It’s about piecing together the facts to show a clear departure from expected behavior. For instance, in a contract dispute, proving a breach involves showing that one party didn’t fulfill their agreed-upon obligations.

Here’s a quick look at common scenarios:

• Driving: Speeding, running red lights, distracted driving.
• Property Owners: Failing to fix dangerous conditions, inadequate security.
• Professionals: Doctors misdiagnosing, lawyers missing deadlines, accountants making errors.

Establishing a breach requires a careful examination of the defendant’s actions against the backdrop of what a reasonably prudent person would have done. It’s the critical link between the existence of a duty and the eventual harm suffered.

Causation In Standard Of Care Negligence

So, you’ve got a situation where someone might have been careless, right? They had a duty to act a certain way, and they didn’t. But just because someone messed up doesn’t automatically mean they have to pay for everything. That’s where causation comes in. It’s the link, the bridge, between the careless act and the harm that happened. Without this connection, the whole negligence claim kind of falls apart.

Actual Cause and Proximate Cause

When we talk about causation, there are really two main parts to consider. First, there’s actual cause, often called the "but-for" cause. This is the straightforward one: but for the defendant’s actions, would the plaintiff have been injured? If the answer is no, then actual cause is likely established. It’s like asking, "Did this specific action directly lead to the problem?"

Then there’s proximate cause. This is a bit trickier. It’s not just about whether the action could have caused the harm, but whether the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the action. The law doesn’t want to hold people responsible for every single ripple effect that comes from their mistake, especially if those effects are really out there or unexpected. It’s about fairness and limiting liability to consequences that are reasonably connected to the original carelessness. Think of it as the legal limit on how far back we trace the blame.

Linking Breach To Damages

Establishing both actual and proximate cause is key to linking the defendant’s breach of the standard of care directly to the plaintiff’s damages. It’s not enough to show that the defendant was negligent and that the plaintiff suffered some loss. You have to prove that the defendant’s specific negligent behavior was the reason, or a significant reason, for that loss. This often involves presenting evidence that clearly shows the sequence of events.

Here’s a breakdown of how this link is typically demonstrated:

• Demonstrate the Breach: Clearly show how the defendant failed to meet the required standard of care.
• Identify the Harm: Detail the specific injuries or losses the plaintiff experienced.
• Connect the Dots: Present evidence (testimony, documents, expert opinions) that shows the breach directly led to the harm.
• Address Foreseeability: Argue why the type of harm suffered was a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the defendant’s actions.

Foreseeable Consequences of Actions

Foreseeability is the cornerstone of proximate cause. The question isn’t whether the defendant could have imagined every possible bad outcome, but whether a reasonable person in the same situation would have foreseen that their actions could lead to this type of harm. For example, if a driver runs a red light and hits another car, it’s foreseeable that the occupants of the other car might be injured. However, if a freak lightning strike occurred at the exact moment of the collision, causing additional damage, that might not be considered a foreseeable consequence of running the red light.

The concept of foreseeability acts as a crucial boundary, preventing liability from extending indefinitely to every conceivable consequence of an action. It ensures that legal responsibility is tied to risks that are objectively predictable and within the scope of what a reasonably prudent person would anticipate.

This element is often where legal arguments get intense, as lawyers debate what was or wasn’t reasonably foreseeable at the time of the incident. It’s a critical part of proving negligence in court.

Damages Resulting From Negligence

When someone’s carelessness causes harm, the law steps in to try and make things right. This is where damages come into play. Essentially, damages are the monetary awards a court can order to compensate the injured party for the losses they’ve suffered because of another person’s negligent actions. It’s not just about punishing the wrongdoer, though that can happen too; the primary goal is to put the injured person back in the position they would have been in if the negligence hadn’t occurred. This involves looking at all the ways the harm has impacted their life.

Compensatory Damages For Losses

These are the most common type of damages awarded in negligence cases. They are meant to directly offset the actual losses the injured party experienced. Think of it as trying to balance the scales by covering the costs associated with the harm. This can include a wide range of things, from immediate medical bills to long-term care needs.

• Medical expenses (past, present, and future)
• Lost wages and earning capacity
• Property damage
• Rehabilitation costs

Economic And Non-Economic Losses

Compensatory damages are further broken down into two main categories: economic and non-economic losses. Economic damages are pretty straightforward; they are quantifiable financial losses. Non-economic damages, on the other hand, deal with the more intangible, subjective impacts of the injury. These can be harder to put a dollar amount on, but they are just as real.

Economic Damages:

• Medical Bills: All costs related to treatment, hospitalization, medication, and therapy.
• Lost Income: Wages lost from the time of injury until recovery, and also potential future earnings if the injury affects long-term earning capacity.
• Property Repair/Replacement: Costs to fix or replace anything damaged due to the negligence.

Non-Economic Damages:

• Pain and Suffering: Compensation for physical pain and emotional distress experienced.
• Loss of Enjoyment of Life: Damages for the inability to participate in activities the person previously enjoyed.
• Emotional Distress: Compensation for psychological harm like anxiety, depression, or PTSD.

The concept of putting an injured party back in their original position is central to tort law. While money can’t undo harm, it can alleviate the financial burdens and provide some measure of solace for the suffering endured. The challenge often lies in accurately valuing these diverse losses.

Punitive Damages For Egregious Conduct

Sometimes, the negligent behavior isn’t just careless; it’s reckless, malicious, or shows a willful disregard for the safety of others. In these extreme situations, courts may award punitive damages. Unlike compensatory damages, which aim to make the victim whole, punitive damages are designed to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar conduct in the future. They are not awarded in every case, only when the conduct is particularly bad. For example, if a company knowingly sells a dangerous product without warning, and someone gets hurt, punitive damages might be considered to send a strong message. This is a way the legal system tries to address civil liability that goes beyond simple carelessness.

Professional Standards Of Care

When we talk about negligence, we often think about everyday folks making mistakes, like a driver running a red light or a homeowner forgetting to fix a broken step. But there’s a whole other level when it comes to people who are supposed to have special skills or knowledge. These are the professionals – doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, you name it. They’re held to a different, usually higher, standard because, well, we expect them to know better and do better.

Duties In Licensed Professions

For professions that require a license, like medicine or law, there’s an implied promise that the person has a certain level of competence. It’s not just about not being careless; it’s about meeting the accepted practices within that field. Think of it like this: a general practitioner isn’t expected to perform brain surgery, but they are expected to diagnose common illnesses correctly and refer patients to specialists when needed. The licensing itself is a signal to the public that the individual has met certain educational and training benchmarks. Failing to live up to these professional benchmarks can lead to liability if someone gets hurt as a result.

Medical Malpractice Standards

Medical malpractice is probably the most talked-about area when it comes to professional standards. Here, the standard of care is typically defined by what a reasonably prudent medical professional with similar training and experience would do under similar circumstances. This isn’t about perfection; it’s about avoiding errors that a competent professional wouldn’t make. Proving medical malpractice usually involves expert testimony from other doctors who can explain what the standard of care was and how the defendant doctor fell short. It’s a complex area because medicine is constantly evolving, and what was acceptable practice years ago might not be today.

Legal Malpractice Considerations

Lawyers, too, have a professional standard of care. They’re expected to represent their clients competently and diligently. This means understanding the law relevant to the case, filing documents on time, communicating with the client, and acting in the client’s best interest. A common example of legal malpractice is missing a statute of limitations, which means a client loses their right to sue because the lawyer didn’t file the case within the legally allowed timeframe. Another could be failing to properly investigate a case or give sound legal advice. Like in medicine, proving legal malpractice often requires another lawyer to testify about what the standard of care was and how the defendant attorney breached it.

The core idea across all licensed professions is that individuals who hold themselves out as having specialized knowledge or skills are obligated to use those skills with the level of care and competence expected by their peers and the public. This isn’t just about avoiding harm; it’s about upholding the integrity of the profession itself.

Product Liability And The Standard Of Care

When we talk about products, whether it’s a toaster, a car, or even a simple toy, there’s an expectation that they’ll be safe to use. If a product ends up hurting someone because it was faulty, the company that made it or sold it can be held responsible. This area of law is called product liability, and it’s all about making sure manufacturers and sellers meet a certain standard of care.

Manufacturer’s Duty Of Care

Manufacturers have a pretty big responsibility to make sure their products don’t cause harm. This duty isn’t just about making sure the product works as intended; it’s also about anticipating potential dangers. They need to think about how people will actually use the product, not just how they should use it. This means designing it carefully, building it correctly, and providing clear instructions and warnings.

Defective Product Designs

Sometimes, the problem isn’t with how a product was made, but with the original plan. A design defect means the product is inherently unsafe, even if it was manufactured perfectly. Think about a ladder that’s designed with legs that are too narrow, making it unstable. Even if every single ladder is built exactly to that flawed design, they’re all still dangerous. Courts look at whether a reasonable alternative design existed that would have made the product safer without making it too expensive or impractical.

Failure To Warn Of Risks

Even if a product is designed and manufactured well, it can still be dangerous if people don’t know about the risks. This is where the duty to warn comes in. Manufacturers need to provide adequate warnings about potential dangers that aren’t obvious. For example, a powerful cleaning chemical should have clear warnings about not mixing it with other substances or the need for ventilation. If a company doesn’t warn about a foreseeable risk, and someone gets hurt because of it, they could be liable. It’s not just about putting a tiny warning label somewhere; the warning needs to be clear, conspicuous, and understandable to the average user.

Here’s a breakdown of common product liability issues:

• Design Defects: The product’s blueprint is flawed, making it unsafe.
• Manufacturing Defects: An error during production makes a specific unit or batch unsafe.
• Marketing Defects (Failure to Warn): Inadequate instructions or warnings about potential dangers.

The standard of care in product liability cases often focuses on whether the manufacturer acted reasonably to prevent foreseeable harm. This involves a close look at the product’s design, the manufacturing process, and the information provided to consumers.

Defenses To Standard Of Care Negligence

Even when someone might seem to have failed to act with reasonable care, leading to harm, the person being sued can bring up certain defenses. These aren’t about saying they did act reasonably, but rather that the plaintiff’s own actions or the circumstances prevent them from winning the case. It’s like having a few extra cards up your sleeve in a legal game.

Contributory Negligence

This is a pretty old-school defense. Basically, if the person who got hurt (the plaintiff) did anything, even a little bit, to contribute to their own injury, they might not be able to recover any damages at all. Think about it: if you’re speeding and someone runs a red light, but you were also going way too fast, a strict contributory negligence rule could mean you get nothing. It’s a harsh all-or-nothing approach that’s been softened in many places.

Comparative Negligence

This is the more common approach now. Instead of barring recovery completely, comparative negligence looks at how much fault belongs to each party. The court or jury assigns a percentage of fault. If the plaintiff is found to be, say, 30% at fault, they can only recover 70% of their damages. There are a couple of flavors of this:

• Pure Comparative Negligence: You can recover damages no matter how much you were at fault, though your award will be reduced by your percentage of fault.
• Modified Comparative Negligence: This is more common. You can only recover if your fault is below a certain threshold, usually 50% or 51%. If you’re 50% or more at fault (depending on the state’s rule), you get nothing.

Here’s a quick look at how it might play out:

Plaintiff’s Fault Percentage	Pure Comparative Recovery	Modified Comparative (50% bar) Recovery
10%	90%	90%
40%	60%	60%
50%	50%	0%
75%	25%	0%

Assumption of Risk

This defense comes into play when the plaintiff knew about a particular danger and voluntarily chose to face it anyway. It’s about acknowledging a risk. For example, if you go to a baseball game and deliberately sit in an unscreened area, knowing that foul balls are common, you might be assuming the risk of getting hit by one. This can be tricky because the risk has to be understood and voluntarily accepted. Sometimes, this defense is folded into comparative negligence rules, where the plaintiff’s awareness of the risk is just another factor in assigning fault. It’s important to understand that simply being aware of a general risk doesn’t always mean you’ve assumed a specific one that arises from someone else’s negligence. Understanding these defenses is key for anyone involved in a legal dispute.

Vicarious Liability And Standard Of Care

Sometimes, you can be held responsible for what someone else does, even if you weren’t directly involved. This is called vicarious liability. In the context of negligence, it most often comes up in employer-employee relationships. Basically, if an employee messes up and causes harm while doing their job, the employer might have to pay for the damages. It’s not about the employer being negligent themselves, but rather being legally responsible for the employee’s actions.

Employer Responsibility For Employee Actions

This is where the concept of respondeat superior really kicks in. It’s a Latin phrase that means "let the master answer." The idea is that employers have a certain level of control over their employees and benefit from their work, so they should also bear responsibility when that work leads to harm. It’s a way to make sure that injured parties have a better chance of getting compensated, especially since employers often have more financial resources than individual employees.

Scope Of Employment

Now, this doesn’t mean an employer is on the hook for everything an employee does. The key is whether the employee’s actions were within the "scope of employment." This can get tricky. Generally, if the employee was doing something they were hired to do, or something closely related to their job duties, then it’s likely within the scope. But if they were off doing something completely unrelated, like running a personal errand or engaging in intentional misconduct far removed from their work, the employer might not be liable.

Here’s a general breakdown of what’s often considered within the scope:

• Performing Assigned Tasks: Actions directly related to the employee’s job description.
• Incidental Activities: Things that are a natural or necessary part of the job, even if not explicitly stated.
• Acts for Employer’s Benefit: Actions taken, even if misguided, with the intention of serving the employer’s interests.

Conversely, actions typically outside the scope include:

• Purely Personal Pursuits: Activities unrelated to work that the employee undertakes for their own reasons.
• Intentional Torts (Sometimes): While some intentional acts can fall within the scope if they are related to the job (e.g., a bouncer using excessive force), many intentional wrongs are considered outside the scope.
• Commuting: Generally, traveling to and from work is not considered within the scope of employment.

Respondeat Superior Doctrine

So, the respondeat superior doctrine is the legal principle that allows for vicarious liability in these employer-employee situations. It’s a form of strict liability in that the employer’s own fault or negligence isn’t the primary issue. Instead, the focus is on the employee’s actions and whether they occurred within the employment context. This doctrine encourages employers to be diligent in hiring, training, and supervising their staff to minimize the risk of harm to others.

It’s important to remember that vicarious liability doesn’t absolve the employee of their own responsibility. The injured party can often sue both the employee for their direct negligence and the employer for vicarious liability. The employer, after paying damages, might then have a right to seek reimbursement from the employee, though this is less common in practice.

Think of it like this: If a delivery driver, while on their route and making a delivery, negligently crashes into another car, the employer (the delivery company) would likely be held responsible under respondeat superior. But if that same driver, after their shift, went joyriding in the company van and caused an accident, the employer probably wouldn’t be liable because the joyriding was outside the scope of employment.

Strict Liability Versus Negligence

When we talk about legal responsibility for harm, two big concepts often come up: negligence and strict liability. They sound similar, but they’re actually quite different in how they assign blame. Understanding this difference is key to grasping how our legal system handles accidents and injuries.

Liability Without Fault

With negligence, you have to prove that someone acted carelessly. They had a duty of care, they failed to meet that standard, and their failure caused harm. It’s all about proving fault. Strict liability, though, throws that requirement out the window. Under strict liability, a party can be held responsible for harm even if they weren’t negligent or didn’t intend to cause harm. It’s a way to assign responsibility in situations where the activity itself is considered inherently dangerous, or when a product is defective.

Application In Hazardous Activities

Think about activities that carry a high risk of harm, no matter how careful someone is. Things like using explosives, keeping wild animals, or certain types of manufacturing can fall under strict liability. If something goes wrong and someone gets hurt, the person or entity engaging in that activity might be liable, regardless of whether they took every possible precaution. The law essentially says, "This activity is so risky, you’re responsible if it causes damage, period." This encourages extreme caution and provides a clearer path for victims to seek compensation when dealing with inherently dangerous situations. It’s a core part of tort law that focuses on the nature of the activity rather than the actor’s conduct.

Distinguishing From Negligence Claims

The main difference boils down to proof. In a negligence case, the injured party (the plaintiff) has the burden of proving the defendant’s carelessness. This involves showing:

• Duty: The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
• Breach: The defendant breached that duty.
• Causation: The breach directly caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
• Damages: The plaintiff suffered actual harm or losses.

In a strict liability case, however, the plaintiff generally only needs to prove:

• The defendant engaged in a specific type of activity (like manufacturing a product or keeping a dangerous animal).
• The activity caused harm to the plaintiff.

The defendant’s level of care or intent is usually irrelevant. This makes establishing liability potentially simpler for plaintiffs in strict liability cases, though the types of cases where it applies are more limited than those involving negligence.

Wrapping Up: The Standard of Care

So, we’ve talked a lot about what it means to be careful enough in the eyes of the law. It’s not about being perfect, but about acting like a reasonably sensible person would in a similar situation. This idea, the ‘standard of care,’ is really the backbone of negligence cases. It’s how courts figure out if someone messed up and caused harm. Whether it’s a doctor treating a patient or just someone driving their car, this standard helps decide who’s responsible when things go wrong. It’s a pretty big deal in making sure people are held accountable for their actions, or sometimes, their inactions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the ‘standard of care’ in simple terms?

Think of the ‘standard of care’ as the level of caution or attention that a regular, sensible person would use in a similar situation. If someone doesn’t act as carefully as they should, and this causes harm to another person, they might be considered negligent.

How do you know if someone’s actions were careless enough to be called negligence?

To figure this out, we ask: would a normal, careful person have done the same thing in the same circumstances? If the answer is no, and someone got hurt because of it, then the actions likely fell below the expected standard of care.

Does the ‘standard of care’ change depending on the situation?

Yes, it absolutely can. For example, a doctor is expected to have a higher level of care when treating a patient than a regular person would. The situation and the skills involved matter a lot in deciding what’s considered careful enough.

What does it mean to ‘owe a duty of care’?

It means you have a legal responsibility to act in a way that doesn’t put others in danger. For instance, drivers have a duty to drive safely to protect other people on the road. It’s about being mindful of how your actions might affect others.

If someone gets hurt, how do they prove that the other person was careless?

They need to show a few things: first, that the other person had a duty to be careful. Second, that they failed to be careful (breached that duty). Third, that this carelessness actually caused the injury. And finally, that the injury resulted in some kind of loss or damage.

What happens if the person who got hurt was also a little bit careless?

In many places, if the injured person was also careless, their compensation might be reduced. This is often called ‘comparative negligence.’ The amount they can get back is usually lowered based on how much their own carelessness contributed to the problem.

Are doctors and lawyers held to the same ‘standard of care’ as everyone else?

No, professionals like doctors, lawyers, and engineers have a higher ‘professional standard of care.’ They are expected to have the knowledge and skills of someone in their profession and act accordingly. If they don’t, they can be found negligent.

What’s the difference between negligence and ‘strict liability’?

Negligence means someone was careless. Strict liability, on the other hand, means someone is responsible for harm even if they weren’t careless at all. This usually applies to activities that are very dangerous by nature, like using explosives, or for defective products.