As a legal term, this word means diligence, prudence, discretion, attentiveness, watchfulness, vigilance. It is the opposite of negligence or carelessness.
There are three degrees of care in the law, corresponding (inversely) to the three degrees of negligence, viz.: slight care, ordinary care, and great care.
The exact boundaries between
More... As a legal term, this word means diligence, prudence, discretion, attentiveness, watchfulness, vigilance. It is the opposite of negligence or carelessness.
There are three degrees of care in the law, corresponding (inversely) to the three degrees of negligence, viz.: slight care, ordinary care, and great care.
The exact boundaries between the several degrees of care, and their correlative degrees of carelessness, or negligence, are not always clearly defined or easily pointed out. We think, however, that by "ordinary care" is meant that degree of care which may reasonably be expected from a person in the party's situation,—that is, "reasonable care;" and that "gross negligence" imports not a malicious intention or design to produce a particular injury, but a thoughtless disregard of consequences, the absence, rather than the actual exercise, of volition with reference to results. Neal v. Gillett, 23 Conn. 443.
Slight care Is such as persons of ordinary prudence usually exercise about their own affairs of slight importance. Rev. Codes N. D. 1899, f 5109; Rev. St. Okl. 1903, § 2782. Or it is that degree of care which a person exercises about his own concerns, though lie may be a person of less than common prudence or of careless and inattentive disposition. Litchfield v. White. 7 N. T. 442, 57 Am. Dec. 534; Bank v.* Guilmartin. 93 Ga. 503, 21 S. E. 55. 44 Am. St. Rep. 182.
Ordinary care is that degree of care which persons of ordinary care find prudence are accustomed to use and employ, under the same or similar circumstances, in order to conduct the enterprise in which they are engaged to a safe and successful termination having due regard to the rights of others and the objects to be accomplished. Gunn v. Railroad Co.. 36 W. Va. 165, 14 S. E. 465, 32 Am. St Rep. 842; Sullivan v. Scrioture, 3 Allen (Mass.) 566; Osborn v. Woodford. 31 Kan. 290, 1 Pac. 548: Railroad Co. v. Terry. 8 Ohio St. 570: Railroad Co. v. McCoy. 81 Ky. 403; Railroad Co. v. Howard, 79 Ga. 44. 3 S. BL 426; Paden v. Van Blaroom, 100 Mo. App. 385. 74 S. W. 124.
Great care is such as persons of ordinary prudence usually exercise about affairs of their own which are of great importance; or it is that degree of care usually bestowed upon the matter In hand by the most competent, prudent, and careful persons having to do with the particular subject. Railway Co. v. Rollins, 5 Kan. 180; Litchfield v. White, 7 N. Y. 442. 57 Am. Dec. 534; Railway Co. v. Smith, 87 Tex. 348, 28 S. W. 520; Telegraph Co. v. Cook, 61 Fed. 628, 9 C. C. A. 680.
Reasonable care is such a degree of care, precaution, or diligence as may fairly and properly be expected or required, having regard to the nature of the action, or of the subject-matter, and the circumstances surrounding the transaction. "Reasonable care and skill" is a relative phrase, and, in its application as a rule or measure of duty, will vary in its requirements, according to the circumstances under which the care and skill are to be exerted. See Johnson v. Hudson River R. Co. 6 Duer CS. Y.) 646; Cunningham v. Hall, 4 Allen (Mass.) 276; Dexter v. McCready, 54 Conn. 171, 5 Atl. 855; Appel v. Eaton ft Price Co., 97 Mo. App. 428, 71 S. W. 741; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Noble, 142 111. 578, 32 N. E. 684.
Less...
