What Is Breach of Duty? Legal Definition & Examples

In general, a duty of care is a legal obligation one person owes to another to exercise reasonable caution when doing something that could foreseeably cause harm. The definition may seem simple enough, but in a negligence case, both “reasonable” and “foreseeable” can be important points of disagreement.

There are many situations in which people have a duty of care. A doctor has a duty of care to meet the standard of care required by the patient’s condition. An accountant has a duty of care to prepare tax returns accurately. A store owner has a duty of care to clear ice off their sidewalk so patrons do not fall.

A duty of care only exists when there is a relationship that warrants it. Your doctor has no duty of care to help you manage your finances. Your accountant has no duty of care to ensure you get treatment for your chronic illness.

Relationship Between the Parties

A duty of care can arise because of a situation or because of a contract or statute. In general there are four situations where a duty of care exists:

1. The defendant was involved in creating the risk which caused harm to the plaintiff. Example: A worker left a manhole cover off with no sign, causing the plaintiff to fall in the hole.
2. The defendant volunteered to protect the plaintiff from harm. Example: A drunk volunteer firefighter drops the person they are carrying out of a burning building.
3. The defendant knew or should have known that their actions would result in harm to the plaintiff. Example: The defendant drove without their lights on so a pedestrian did not see them and was hit.
4. The plaintiff and defendant have a business relationship, such as innkeeper and guest, or they have a voluntary relationship, such as a person who invites the public onto their property.

Relevant Statutes, Rules and Regulations

Because each state has its own laws concerning breach of duty and negligence, there are different standards and interpretations.

Some states have statutes or rules that specifically lay out the steps that are required as part of a duty of care. A state may have a law or regulation that specifies steps that must be taken by certain people or companies. For example, states have regulations that explosives manufacturers must follow to protect the community.

Breach of duty occurs when a duty of care exists and was not followed. Breach of duty is an important component in negligence cases.

For example, you have a duty of care to other drivers to drive under the speed limit and a duty of care not to drink and drive. You breach that duty by driving over the speed limit or by drinking and driving.

Reasonable Person Standard

The standard of care at common law is an objective one known as the reasonable person standard. A reasonable person is someone with reasonable caution who doesn’t take actions likely to result in harm to themselves or others or who takes evasive action to avoid harm.

In most civil cases, if a reasonable person would have acted with more care than the defendant acted, the defendant likely breached their duty.

Remember, a duty of care is a legal obligation one person owes to another to exercise reasonable caution when doing something that could foreseeably cause harm. When that is breached, negligence is the result.

In some states, foreseeability is the only test required to create a duty of care. What this means is that if a jury finds that if the harm was foreseeable then, the actor was negligent. So, for example, it’s foreseeable that deciding to drive drunk will result in a car accident — the person who decided to drink and drive was negligent.

A majority of states, however, rely on a multifactor analysis to determine whether a duty existed. Though states have different factors, most include:

• How great the potential harm could be
• The cost and potential to choose an alternative to the action taken
• The need to discourage future harm
• How closely connected the action and the harm are to one another

Once a duty of care is established, if that duty was breached then a test is applied to determine if there was negligence.

There are four elements of a negligence claim:

1. The defendant owed a duty of care to someone
2. The defendant breached that duty
3. The breach of duty caused harm to the plaintiff
4. The harm caused damages

So far, we’ve discussed negligence cases. Negligence cases include personal injury, medical malpractice, product liability and other types of civil cases, but there are other cases that can also involve a breach of duty: strict liability. Strict liability is the breach of an absolute duty to make something safe.

Strict liability cases fall into three categories:

• Product liability: Where a plaintiff is harmed by a defective product made by the defendant
• Dangerous animals: A defendant owned or was responsible for a dangerous animal that cause harm to the plaintiff
• Abnormally dangerous activities: The defendant took part in activities known to be dangerous, such as storing dynamite in their garage. In a strict liability case there is no reasonable person standard or any inquiry into what the defendant knew. If the injury occurred and was caused by the product, animal or activity, then the defendant is liable.

Examples of a Breach of Duty of Care in a Strict Liability Case

One of the most common types of strict liability cases is one involving keeping extremely dangerous animals. If someone owns a tiger and it escapes and hurts someone, it won’t matter if the owner was negligent. Simply owning the animal establishes their liability.

One defense to a breach of duty claim is that no duty existed. The defendant was not in a position to have a duty of care toward the plaintiff and is not responsible for the harm.

However, the reasonable person standard means that there’s a duty to act reasonably and with due caution and care, more or less, all the time. One way around this is to claim that the plaintiff assumed the risk.

When someone assumes the risk, they accept responsibility for any harm that they may suffer as a result of an activity. This effectively relieves the potential defendant of any duty owed. They must have been aware of the risk and accepted it either verbally or through their actions. Signing a release before you go skydiving is an assumption of risk. Walking into a cage with a sign that says “Danger: Poisonous Snake Inside: Do Not Enter” creates assumption of risk.

Another defense to negligence involves proving that the plaintiff was also negligent. This depends on the negligence law in the state where the case happens.

There are three negligence standards in the U.S. To explain them all, let’s consider an auto accident where the plaintiff, who was speeding, is 30% responsible for the damages and the defendant, who changed lanes illegally while drunk, is 70% responsible. The total damages are $10,000.

• Comparative negligence: In these states, the court determines the percentage of fault each party has and then awards damages accordingly. Here, the plaintiff would recover $7,000.
• Modified comparative negligence: In states that follow a modified version of the comparative negligence rule, the court will award damages only to the parties who are less than 50% at fault. Here, the plaintiff would get $10,000.
• Contributory negligence: States that follow this rule—and there are only a few—award no damages to anyone who shares fault for the damages. In our example, neither party would get anything. In these few states, a defendant accused of breaching a duty can bar the plaintiff from recovering by proving they were as little as 1% responsible for the damages.

Read more about related topics, such as libel and slander.