The “Standard of Care” Reasonable Care Versus Perfect Care
Published .
The law generally requires reasonable care, not perfect judgment or a guaranteed result. A bad outcome, by itself, does not prove negligence. The question is whether the person or professional acted as the applicable legal standard required in the circumstances, and whether a proven failure caused injury.
Ordinary negligence
For ordinary negligence, the fact finder generally compares the defendant’s conduct with the care a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar circumstances. The standard can account for what the person knew or reasonably should have known, the risks that were apparent, and the choices available at the time. It does not demand that a person predict every unlikely event or choose the safest imaginable option in hindsight.
Professional care and “medical malpractice”
A professional is judged by the applicable professional standard, not simply by what an average person would do. In a Maryland medical malpractice action, the statute asks whether the care matched the standards of practice among members of the same health care profession with similar training and experience in the same or similar communities at the time. A provider is not a guarantor of recovery, and reasonable professionals may sometimes disagree about diagnosis or treatment. The legal question is whether the care fell below the applicable standard and caused injury. Expert testimony commonly explains that standard and any departure from it.
The standard depends on the claim. A case about a physician’s diagnosis or treatment should be evaluated under the professional medical standard; a separate claim about a nonprofessional act may involve ordinary negligence. The court must give the jury instructions that fit the evidence and the type of claim.
Several small errors and the need for injury and “causation”
There does not have to be one dramatic mistake or one single event. A sequence of acts or omissions may be relevant if the evidence shows that one or more departures from the applicable standard caused or contributed to an actual injury. For example, a missed test result, a delayed follow-up, and a failure to respond to worsening symptoms might need to be considered together if the evidence connects them to a preventable worsening of the patient’s condition.
But counting mistakes is not enough. Several minor shortcomings that did not violate the applicable standard, did not cause injury, or did not contribute to the harm do not become a malpractice claim merely because they are grouped together. The claim still requires proof of the applicable standard, a breach, causation, and legally recognized injury. Often the key dispute is whether the alleged failures made a difference to the outcome, not whether the care could have been better in hindsight.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 3-2A-02(c)(1); Armacost v. Davis, 462 Md. 504, 201 A.3d 859 (2019); Shilkret v. Annapolis Emergency Hospital Ass’n, 276 Md. 187, 349 A.2d 245 (1975).