Reasonable Care

Reasonable care is a legal concept used when assessing how a person should have acted in particular circumstances. In negligence matters, the law generally does not require people to prevent every possible accident or eliminate every risk. Instead, the question is whether reasonable care was taken in response to the risks that existed.

What amounts to reasonable care depends on the circumstances. The nature and likelihood of a risk, the seriousness of the potential harm, and the burden of taking precautions may all be relevant.

The concept is closely connected with duty of care and breach of duty, but each addresses a different part of the negligence analysis.

What does reasonable care mean?

Reasonable care describes the standard of care expected in particular circumstances. It is an objective legal standard rather than a requirement that a person simply do what they personally considered appropriate at the time.

In a negligence claim, the court may consider how a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have responded to the relevant risk.

This does not mean that the law expects perfect conduct. The existence of a safer alternative, or the fact that an accident could have been prevented with hindsight, does not necessarily establish that reasonable care was not taken.

How is reasonable care assessed?

In Queensland, the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) provides a framework for assessing breach of duty in many negligence claims.

Under section 9, a person does not breach a duty to take precautions against a risk of harm unless the risk was foreseeable, was not insignificant, and a reasonable person in the person’s position would have taken precautions against it.

When deciding whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions, the court considers the circumstances of the particular case.

These considerations are sometimes described as part of the balancing exercise used to determine whether reasonable precautions should have been taken.

Is reasonable care the same as duty of care?

No. Duty of care and reasonable care are related concepts, but they address different questions.

A duty of care concerns whether the law recognises an obligation to take care to avoid causing harm to another person. Reasonable care concerns the standard of conduct expected when considering how that obligation should have been performed in the circumstances.

Is reasonable care the same as breach of duty?

Not exactly. Reasonable care describes the standard against which conduct may be assessed. Breach of duty concerns whether the conduct in question failed to meet the standard required by law.

For example, a person may owe another person a duty of care. The court may then consider what reasonable care required in the circumstances and whether the person’s conduct fell below that standard.

The concepts therefore work together, but they should not be treated as interchangeable.

Does reasonable care mean every risk must be prevented?

No. The law does not generally require every conceivable risk to be eliminated.

Whether precautions were required depends on matters such as the foreseeability and significance of the risk, the likelihood and seriousness of potential harm, and the burden involved in taking precautions.

This means that an accident occurring does not necessarily establish that someone failed to take reasonable care.

Examples of reasonable care

How does reasonable care relate to contributory negligence?

The concept of reasonable care can also arise when considering the conduct of an injured person.

Under section 23 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), the principles applying to the standard of care for contributory negligence are generally the same as those applying when determining whether a person breached a duty.

The assessment is based on what a reasonable person in the position of the injured person would have known or done in the circumstances.

If a failure to take reasonable care for their own safety contributed to the harm suffered, contributory negligence may arise and may affect the damages recoverable.

What evidence may be relevant?

The evidence needed to assess whether reasonable care was taken varies according to the circumstances and the nature of the alleged risk.

• Photographs and video footage;
• Witness statements;
• Incident reports;
• Policies and procedures;
• Risk assessments;
• Workplace or maintenance records;
• Expert evidence; and
• Other contemporaneous documents.

The relevant evidence is considered in the context of the circumstances existing at the time, rather than solely with the benefit of hindsight.

Relevant Queensland legislation

The legal framework relevant to reasonable care depends on the type of matter and the circumstances in which the issue arises.

The legislation relevant to a particular matter depends on the type of claim and its individual circumstances.

Frequently asked questions