Breach of duty is the second element of a negligence claim and often the central battleground in a Georgia personal injury case. A breach of duty occurs when a person who owes a legal duty of care fails to meet the standard of conduct the law requires. This guide explains what breach of duty means under Georgia law, how the applicable standard of care is defined, and how a breach is established.
Where Breach of Duty Fits in a Negligence Claim
A negligence claim in Georgia has four elements. The plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a legal duty, that the defendant breached that duty, that the breach caused the plaintiff’s injury, and that the plaintiff suffered actual damages. Breach of duty is the link between the abstract obligation and the wrongful conduct. Even where a duty plainly exists, there is no liability unless the defendant failed to live up to the standard that duty requires.
The first element, duty, asks whether the law recognizes an obligation of care running from the defendant to the plaintiff. The second element, breach, asks whether the defendant’s actual conduct fell short of that obligation. The two are distinct: a defendant can owe a duty and still not breach it if the defendant acted with the care the law demands.
The Standard of Care
Breach of duty cannot be evaluated without first identifying the applicable standard of care. In ordinary negligence cases, Georgia law defines the standard through O.C.G.A. Section 51-1-2, which addresses ordinary diligence and ordinary negligence. That statute defines ordinary diligence as that degree of care which is exercised by ordinarily prudent persons under the same or similar circumstances. The absence of such diligence is ordinary negligence.
This is the familiar reasonable person standard. The law measures the defendant’s conduct against what a hypothetical ordinarily prudent person would have done in the same situation. The standard is objective, meaning it does not depend on the defendant’s individual judgment, good intentions, or personal limitations. It asks what a reasonable person would have done, not what this particular defendant believed was acceptable.
The Standard Is Relative to the Circumstances
Georgia courts have emphasized that ordinary care is a relative concept, not an absolute one. What ordinary diligence requires depends on the circumstances of each case. The care of a prudent person varies with the degree of danger involved. A situation that presents a high risk of serious harm calls for a greater degree of caution than a situation that presents little danger. The standard remains the conduct of an ordinarily prudent person, but the application of that standard adjusts to the level of risk present in the particular setting.
This means that a breach of duty is always assessed in context. The fact finder considers the conditions known or knowable to the defendant, the foreseeable risks, and what a reasonable person would have done in response to those risks. Conduct that would be reasonable in one setting can amount to a breach in another where the danger is greater.
Specialized Standards of Care
The ordinary care standard applies to most negligence cases, but Georgia law recognizes that some activities are governed by a more specific standard. In professional negligence cases, such as medical malpractice, the standard is not the conduct of an ordinary person but the degree of care and skill exercised by the profession generally under similar conditions. Proving a breach in those cases ordinarily requires expert testimony to establish what the professional standard required and how the defendant departed from it. The general principle remains the same, that breach means falling below the applicable standard, but the content of the standard is defined by the relevant profession rather than by the conduct of a layperson.
Negligence Per Se
Georgia also recognizes the doctrine of negligence per se. When a defendant violates a statute or regulation that was designed to protect a class of persons that includes the plaintiff, and to prevent the type of harm that occurred, the violation can establish the breach of duty element. In a negligence per se case, the legislature has in effect defined the standard of conduct, and the violation of the statute supplies the breach. The plaintiff must still prove the remaining elements, including causation and damages, and must show that the statute was intended to protect against the harm that resulted.
How Breach of Duty Is Proven and Decided
The plaintiff carries the burden of proving breach of duty by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the plaintiff must show that it is more likely than not that the defendant failed to exercise the required care. Evidence of breach can include testimony from witnesses, physical evidence, records, and, in appropriate cases, expert opinion.
Whether a defendant breached a duty of care is generally a question of fact for the jury. The jury hears the evidence about what the defendant did and what the circumstances were, and decides whether the conduct met the standard of an ordinarily prudent person. A court may decide the question only in plain and indisputable cases where reasonable minds could not differ. Because the reasonableness of conduct usually depends on the specific facts, breach of duty is most often left to the jury.
Breach of Duty and Comparative Negligence
In Georgia, the conduct of the plaintiff is also examined. Georgia follows a modified comparative negligence system, under which a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s own share of fault, and is barred entirely if the plaintiff’s fault is fifty percent or greater. The defendant’s breach of duty must still be established as part of the plaintiff’s case, but the comparative negligence analysis then allocates responsibility between the parties based on each party’s failure to exercise ordinary care.
Conclusion
Breach of duty is the element of a Georgia negligence claim that asks whether the defendant’s conduct fell below the required standard of care. For ordinary negligence, O.C.G.A. Section 51-1-2 defines that standard as the diligence of an ordinarily prudent person under the same or similar circumstances, a relative standard that adjusts to the degree of danger. Specialized standards apply to professionals, and the doctrine of negligence per se allows a statutory violation to establish breach. Whether a breach occurred is usually a question for the jury, decided by a preponderance of the evidence, and it must be proven before a negligence claim can succeed.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how Georgia law works as a matter of public legal education, and it does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular course of action. Reading this article, or contacting the website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author.
The law changes over time. Statutes, regulations, court rules, and judicial decisions discussed here may have been amended, repealed, superseded, or reinterpreted after the date of publication, and citations to specific code sections or cases reflect the law only as it was understood when this article was written. The application of any legal principle also depends heavily on the specific facts and circumstances of an individual matter, and outcomes vary from case to case.
For these reasons, no one should rely on this article as a substitute for advice from a licensed Georgia attorney who can review the particular facts involved. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken based on this content.