Which of the following best describes negligence in a legal context?

Negligence in a legal context is best described as the failure to meet a reasonable standard of care, which means that an individual did not act with the level of caution that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances. This concept is foundational in tort law and establishes that when a person's actions or inactions harm another party, that individual may be held liable if it can be shown that they did not take appropriate steps to prevent harm.

In legal terms, this involves assessing whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, whether there was a breach of that duty, and whether the breach directly resulted in harm or damages. The idea is not about intent or deliberate actions but rather about carelessness and oversight. This distinction is critical because negligence does not require an intention to cause harm; rather, it focuses on the lack of reasonable care that results in injury.

The other descriptions do not align with how negligence is defined. For instance, accidental harm without a duty does not encompass the relational responsibility necessary for a negligence claim. Intentional harm to another pertains to torts such as battery, where intent is central. Acting deliberately against the law suggests a willful violation rather than an inadvertent failure of care, which is not relevant to the concept of