STANDARD OF CARE SUMMARY

Standard of care.
Rationale.
It is basically to establish whether actually the conduct of a certain individual has fallen below the standard demanded for the protection of others against unreasonable risk or harm. This standard of measure is ordinarily measured by what an ordinary man of ordinary prudence would do in the circumstances. The behavior of the individuals is so inculturable in its vanity and the possible combination of circumstances giving rise to a negligence issue so infinite that it has not been found undesirable if not impossible to formulate precise rules of conduct for all conceivable situations.

Types of Standard of care.
1) Standard of care set by what the ordinary man thinks.
2) Standard of care set by the law.
3) Standard of care set by law.

Where the legislature describes a definite standard, then that act falls under that standard. For example the traffic road and safety act. The general standard of conduct required by law is a necessary complement of the legal concept of duty. The question is only usually one, and it is, did the defendant owe a duty to be careful? What precisely was required of him or her to discharge it? Ali Bisaaso v. Fresh foods limited.Juma Asile v. Nyanza textiles limited.A plaintiff, a qualified laboratory assistant got personal injuries over his body when he was mixing sulphuric acid with water in a plastic container at the defendant company premises. He sued the defendant alleging negligence in failing to provide the plaintiff with a safe system of work and safe appliance. The defense denied negligence and contended that the plaintiff was wholly or partly responsible of the negligence for failing to use protective devices. The court held that the defenders failed to provide appliances to the plaintiff.

At common law, an employer owes a duty to his employee at his premises, i.e. a safe system of work and safe appliances, implements and plants. The duty consists of the employer to take reasonable cautions for the employee’s work safety. The court held that there must reasonable evidence of negligence but where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servant and the accident under the…..
Standard of care set by what the ordinary man thinks

A reasonable man of ordinary prudence is the central figure in the formula traditionally employed in passing the negligence issue. It is just a model of standard to which all are required to conform. It is the embodiment for all the qualities we demand of the good citizens and he is not exactly a model of perfection yet all together are rather better man than probably any single one of us happens or perhaps even aspires to be. So on the whole, the law has chosen external objective standards of conduct. This means that individuals are often held guilty of legal fault for failing to live up to a standard which as a matter of fact they cannot meet. Barnett v. Chelsea Hospital.