Due diligence is “the level of prudence and concern for one`s own safety and the safety of others that a normally prudent and rational person would use in the same circumstances.” This is a minimum standard that must be met and failure to provide reasonable care in a situation may result in a defendant being charged with negligence. Douglas Lauenstein, a lawyer specializing in assaults, works diligently for those who have suffered neglect. Don`t walk alone on the painful path of bodily harm – you deserve justice for your injuries. Contact The Lauenstein Law Firm today for legal advice. In personal injury law, to be negligent, you must either do something to harm someone else or refrain from doing anything that causes their harm. It`s a grey area because accidents happen all the time. The determination of guilt and responsibility is not always as clear as one might assume. The thing that separates when incidents are nothing more than an accident and when they are due to negligence is a legal term called the “standard of care.” A standard of care is the appropriate action a person must take to prevent a person from injuring themselves. Negligence is a failure to act reasonably and diligently, resulting in injury or damage to another person.

There are several aspects that must be respected in order to prove negligence. These include: duty, violation, causation, and damages. Duty means that the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty in the circumstances, and the breach is the breach is the breach of that duty. If the defendant`s actions caused the plaintiff`s injury or injury, this is considered causation, and damages include any injury or damage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant`s act or inaction. The rational person is a legal creation based on a fictitious idea. In legal terms, a “reasonable person” is often ideal, and etiquette attempts to determine what the average or “typical” person would do if they were in the same situation. If a person neglects the standard of care, they may be held liable for the resulting injuries to another person. The standard of care is based on the concept of “appropriate care”. This is the action that a “reasonable person” would take in a situation or event.

For example, if you knew that the porch railing of your home was broken and you didn`t warn a guest leaning against it, that wouldn`t be what a reasonable person would do. A reasonable person would warn someone that they could hurt themselves if they rely on something that is broken. Sometimes in personal injury lawsuits, it is not always clear what a reasonable person would do. Thus, in practice, a standard of care is the amount of care that a “reasonable” person would apply in all cases or circumstances. It is a hypothetical creation of the law, because every individual is different, but it is an objective way of determining a subjective factor in any case of personal injury and it is the basis for establishing negligence and liability. A personal injury attorney in Los Angeles can confirm that this is not a perfect system. Without the presumption of a reasonable person, many victims would not be able to obtain redress for someone else`s negligence. Nor would there be a standard of objectivity in personal injury claims.

There is a duty of “due diligence” for drivers of vehicles travelling on public roads. A driver cannot comply with Maryland state legal traffic rules by driving and causing an accident. In this case, the driver would not have provided “reasonable care” and can be held liable for damages under the tort theory of negligence. n. the degree of prudence and concern for his or her safety and the safety of others that a normally prudent and rational person would apply in the circumstances. This is a subjective test to determine if a person is negligent, that is, if they have not exercised due diligence. With respect to the standard of child care, a child is not expected to behave like a reasonable adult. If personal injury claims involve children as defendants, there is always a reasonable assumption, but the court uses a modified standard.

A child`s actions in a personal injury lawsuit are determined by what other children their age can understand or reflect. However, if the defendant`s actions are adult behavior, the child is credited with reasonable adult care. For example, if a child is snowmobiling or driving a car, they are required to meet the same reasonable standard of care as an adult in the same situation. Since the retrospective is 20/20 and no two people are the same, it is difficult to objectify what a reasonable person would do in all circumstances. In personal injury judgments, a reasonable person does not consider the defendant`s impairments or anything related to him individually. For example, if a person is not very intelligent, ignorance does not negate responsibility for bodily injury. When a reasonable action is awarded, everyone in the court is held to the same standards of intelligence and reasoning ability. Personal injury and tort involve explicit legal terminology, including the terms “due diligence” and “negligence.” But what do these terms really mean? Here, lawyer Douglas Lauenstein breaks down these common phrases and explains their effects on a bodily injury or tort case. The jury`s job is to look at each event and determine what a reasonable person would have done or should have done in a personal injury suit. It is not a question of taking into account the actual characteristics of the accused, but of what he should have done, according to what he knew or did not know before the incident. The jury must decide whether a reasonable person in his or her situation should have known or seen an accident coming.

It is not determined from one person to another. This is a legal hypothesis in which the jury works. Due diligence is the level of caution and concern that a normally prudent and rational person would use in similar circumstances. It is a standard used to determine a legal obligation and whether that obligation has been fulfilled. Reasonableness is an subjective test used to establish negligence, meaning that a person does not exercise due diligence. The court may consider issues to determine whether the first responder has exercised due diligence: take the example of a surgeon performing surgery on a patient. Before starting the procedure, the surgeon fails to properly disinfect his hands. Due to this lack of sanitation, the patient suffers from sepsis, which leads to additional treatment, serious injuries, large medical bills and absenteeism. In this example, the surgeon has a legal obligation because the patient is under his care.

By failing to follow reasonable care, the surgeon violated this obligation, and the failure to comply with hygiene standards caused the patient to become sepsis. As a result, sepsis has caused pain, suffering, high medical bills and lost wages.