What is a Duty of Care?
Every year in Philadelphia, PA thousands of individuals are sued for accidents or injuries sustained by individuals who allege another person or entity was negligent (i.e., failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances) and therefore cause their injury. In order to be negligent, a party must have breached a legally recognized duty of care to the individual who suffered an injury.
A Duty of Care is an Obligation to Act Reasonably
But what is reasonable care and when does one man have a legal duty towards another? According to Pennsylvania case law, “Whether a duty exists under a particular set of facts is a question of law.” Herczeg v. Hampton Twp. Mun. Auth., 766 A.2d 866, 871 (Pa. Super. 2001). “In scenarios involving an actor’s affirmative conduct, he is generally under a duty to others to exercise the care of a reasonable man to protect them against an unreasonable risk of harm to them arising out of the act.” Seebold v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 57 A.3d 1232, 1246 (Pa. 2012).
A Duty of Care Exists Where the Danger is Reasonably Foreseeable
In other words, individuals generally have a duty of care to act reasonably where a risk of danger to others is reasonably foreseeable. For example, in Pennsylvania motor vehicle cases, drivers have a duty of care to follow the rules of the road because it is reasonably foreseeable that failure to do so may cause car accidents. In premises liability cases, Landlords have a duty of care to follow the laws because the government has defined compliance with said laws as the standard of care in renting to tenants. In premises liability cases, property owners have a duty of care to inspect their properties for defects that could reasonably cause injuries to invitees on the premises. In dog bite cases owners have a duty to act reasonably when walking their dogs in public to ensure their animals do not bite others.
Plaintiff Must Also Exercise Reasonable Care
In some cases, a Defendant may not owe a duty of care to another individual despite a legally recognized risk of danger. For example, if the injury was not reasonably foreseeable the Defendant may not have a duty of care under the circumstances. If someone slips and falls on your property but you could not have known of the dangerous condition you may not have a legal duty. Similarly, if the injured party was aware of the danger but assumed the risk knowingly, you may not be liable. If the Defendant was himself negligent (i.e., failed to exercise reasonable care) you may may not be liable even if you violated a legally recognized duty of care. This is because under the law both Plaintiff and Defendant have a legal obligation to act reasonably under the circumstances. Failure by the Plaintiff to act reasonably may obviate the Defendant’s duty of care in some circumstances. The Court’s refer to these legal doctrines as Assumption of the Risk and Comparative Negligence.
A duty of care is an obligation on behalf of the Defendant to act reasonably under the circumstances. What is reasonable under the circumstances is decided by the judge or jury in a negligence case. Often times, a Plaintiff will take the position the Defendant owed a duty of care to the aggrieved party that is unreasonable under the circumstances. It is the Plaintiff’s burden to prove the Defendant owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not). Therefore, if the Plaintiff cannot affirmatively prove a duty of care the Defendant cannot be held legally responsible for the Plaintiff’s injuries.
Speak with a Philadelphia Civil Defense Lawyer
If you have been sued by a personal injury lawyer, speak with an aggressive civil defense lawyer about your legal options to defend the case. It is important to understand it is the Plaintiff’s obligation to prove all elements of their claims more likely than not including a legally recognized duty owed to the Plaintiff. Contact our Philadelphia Civil Defense Lawyers for a free legal consultation to discuss your premises liability, slip and fall, dog bite or car accident defense case.
