What is Reasonable Care vs. Standard of Care?

What is reasonable care vs. standard of care? And is there a difference in a personal injury case? When you are establishing fault for an injury or accident, you must be able to prove that there was a duty of care by the responsible party. This applies to all injury cases. Establishing a duty of care is the first requirement in all negligence cases.

Once you have established that there was a duty of care, the next step is determining if that duty was breached. To do this, you must determine if reasonable care was used and the standard of care accepted.

Reasonable Care vs. Standard of Care in Ontario

Many people use the terms of reasonable care and standard care interchangeably. In some instances, this may be acceptable, but legally it must be understood that there is a difference.

The definitions for reasonable care vs. standard of care are as follows:

Reasonable care is the caution and concern used by an average, rational person in any given situation to prevent the harm of others.

Standard of care is the acceptable standard of care acceptable in society or in a profession.

Example of reasonable vs. standard in a car accident situation:

A person has a reasonable duty to operate their vehicle safely at all times. The standard duty, in this scenario, would be the exact same.

However, in a situation involving a coach and an injured player, the terms reasonable vs. standard are a bit different.

The standard of reasonable care in this situation would state that the coach enforces the use of safety equipment before allowing a player to enter the game. A standard duty, or one that is accepted by profession, would require the coach to hold back a player from entering a game if they know that the player has an injury and could further injure themselves, even if they are wearing safety equipment.

Reasonable care vs. standard of care is also a little different when it comes to medical treatments. The treatments provided by any medical care provider could be defined as reasonable if the condition was stabilized. For example, a person enters the hospital with a broken arm, and the attending care provider places it in a cast so that it may heal.

Your care, however, must be met with professional standards. The person who entered the care facility with a broken arm should have an x-ray taken of the arm to distinguish where and how it is broken. If the bone needs to be reset, this must be done before stabilizing the arm in a cast. Once this has been completed, the arm must be put in a cast, or similar stabilization device, and instructions for care should be provided.

When You Are Injured Speak With A Personal Injury Lawyer

As you can see, the legal issues surrounding reasonable vs. standard can quickly become complex. Working with a lawyer when you have been injured will help you avoid any reasonable doubts as to the standards that were due to you by the responsible party.

To have a successful case, your lawyer must prove the following facts:

• There was a duty of care due to you by the responsible party
• There was a breach in that duty
• The breach in that duty caused you to become injured or harmed
• The injury caused you financial damages

When you have a lawyer managing your claim for compensation, you have the knowledge and resources of their profession backing your case. This will give you an advantage over seeking compensation for your losses on your own. Since legal definitions can be so tricky, and the wrong use of a word can mean a claim denial, it is always in your best interest to have legal representation.