Establishing Breach Of Duty In A New Jersey Negligence Claim

Establishing Breach Of Duty In A New Jersey Negligence Claim

What It Means to Fail the Reasonable Person Standard

Establishing Breach Of Duty In A New Jersey Negligence Claim

Once a plaintiff establishes that the defendant owed them a legal duty of care, the next step in a negligence analysis is to prove that the defendant breached that duty. A breach occurs when the defendant fails to act with the level of care that the law requires under the circumstances. This is the moment in the case where the plaintiff must show that the defendant did something, or failed to do something, that a reasonably prudent person would not have done in the same situation.

The existence of a duty is a legal question determined by the court. In contrast, the question of breach is a factual matter, usually decided by a jury. It is not always straightforward. There is no universal checklist of actions that constitute a breach. Instead, courts rely on the facts of each case to assess whether the defendant’s conduct deviated from what would be expected of a reasonably careful person in a similar position.

The Reasonable Person Standard in Practice

The law does not require individuals to be perfect. It does not demand extraordinary caution or special insight. It simply requires people to behave with the care that an ordinary, prudent person would exercise under comparable circumstances. This standard is objective. It does not change based on the defendant’s personal intentions, experience level, or state of mind. In New Jersey, as in most jurisdictions, courts apply this reasonable person standard uniformly across nearly all negligence cases.

For example, if a driver is speeding through a residential neighborhood and strikes a pedestrian, the jury is asked to consider whether a reasonable driver would have been speeding under the same conditions. If the answer is no, then the driver has breached the duty of care. Similarly, if a homeowner fails to repair a loose handrail that leads to the front door and a visitor is injured as a result, the jury must determine whether a reasonably careful homeowner would have taken action to fix the hazard or warn visitors.

Evidence Used to Prove Breach

Proving that a defendant breached their duty typically requires the presentation of evidence that paints a clear picture of what occurred, how it differed from what should have occurred, and why that difference matters. In many negligence cases, plaintiffs rely on witness testimony, surveillance footage, incident reports, inspection logs, maintenance records, internal communications, or admissions made by the defendant.

In more complex matters—such as medical malpractice, construction defects, or professional negligence—plaintiffs may also need expert testimony to establish what the standard of care is and how the defendant’s conduct fell short.

The key is to demonstrate that the defendant's actions, when judged against the applicable standard, were unreasonable or careless. A defendant who took steps to avoid harm but still caused injury is less likely to be found in breach than one who did nothing at all. The degree of effort, the foreseeability of harm, and the practical ability to avoid the danger all factor into the analysis.

Applying the Breach Element to a Common Premises Liability Case

Revisiting the scenario introduced in the initial negligence post helps clarify how breach is evaluated in practice. A woman enters a grocery store in Bergen County and slips on a puddle of water that had accumulated from a leaking refrigeration unit. The water had been present for over an hour. No store employee had attempted to clean the spill, place a warning sign, or alert customers to the danger.

In that situation, a jury would need to consider whether the store acted as a reasonably prudent business would under the same circumstances. Did the store have actual or constructive notice of the hazard? Was the length of time the spill was present unreasonable? Should the store have had a system in place to monitor for such dangers? If the answer to these questions supports a finding that the store failed to take reasonable precautions, then the breach element would likely be satisfied.

It is worth emphasizing that a breach does not require evil intent or gross misconduct. The vast majority of negligence cases do not involve malicious or reckless behavior. They involve mistakes, omissions, or inattentiveness—failures to take reasonable care. That is sufficient under the law to constitute a breach when the conduct falls below accepted standards.

The Role of Industry Standards and Custom

In certain contexts, such as commercial operations, professional services, or regulated industries, the standard of care may be informed by written policies, safety protocols, or industry guidelines. While not dispositive, these materials often serve as powerful evidence of what a reasonably careful person in that profession or industry would do. For example, if a commercial landlord fails to install handrails required by municipal building codes and a tenant is injured, the failure to comply with the code may strongly support a finding of breach. That is especially true where the regulation was designed specifically to prevent the type of harm that occurred.

However, compliance with industry custom is not a defense in and of itself. A defendant who follows common industry practices may still be found to have breached their duty if those practices are found to be unreasonably risky or outdated. The law does not delegate the definition of reasonable care to trade groups or professional associations.

Why Breach Is a Critical Turning Point in Litigation

The breach element is often where negligence cases become factually intensive. Unlike duty, which is resolved by the court, breach typically requires discovery, depositions, and motion practice to fully develop. If the plaintiff fails to produce evidence showing that the defendant’s conduct was unreasonable, the case will not survive summary judgment. If the case proceeds to trial, the issue of breach becomes one of the central questions for the jury.

In upcoming posts, I will turn to the remaining two elements of negligence: causation and damages. Together, they form the bridge between wrongful conduct and legal liability. Without causation, there is no link between the breach and the harm. Without damages, there is nothing to compensate.

For more information about your legal rights or to schedule a consultation, please contact the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont at www.pjlesq.com, call 201-904-2211, or email info@pjlesq.com.

Contact us today to discuss your business or legal matter. Put our 20+ years of legal experience to work for you.

---

For detailed insights and legal assistance on topics discussed in this post, including litigation, contact the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont at our Bergen County Office. We're here to answer your questions and provide legal advice. Contact us at (201) 904-2211 or email us at  info@pjlesq.com.

Interested in More Legal Insights?

Explore our range of resources on business and legal matters. Subscribe to our podcast and YouTube channel for a wealth of information covering various business and legal topics. For specific inquiries or to discuss your legal matter with an attorney from our team, please email me directly at pl@pjlesq.com or call at (201) 904-2211. Your questions are important to us, and we look forward to providing the answers you need.

About Peter J. Lamont, Esq.

Peter J. Lamont is a nationally recognized attorney with significant experience in business, contract, litigation, and real estate law. With over two decades of legal practice, he has represented a wide array of businesses, including large international corporations. Peter is known for his practical legal and business advice, prioritizing efficient and cost-effective solutions for his clients.

Peter has an Avvo 10.0 Rating and has been acknowledged as one of America's Most Honored Lawyers since 2011. 201 Magazine and Lawyers of Distinction have also recognized him for being one of the top business and litigation attorneys in New Jersey. His commitment to his clients and the legal community is further evidenced by his active role as a speaker, lecturer, and published author in various legal and business publications.

As the founder of the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont, Peter brings his Wall Street experience and client-focused approach to New Jersey, offering personalized legal services that align with each client's unique needs and goals​.

---

DISCLAIMERS: The contents of this website and post are intended to convey general information only and not to provide legal advice or opinions. The contents of this website and the posting and viewing of the information on this website should not be construed as, and should not be relied upon for, legal or tax advice in any particular circumstance or fact situation. Nothing on this website is an offer to represent you, and nothing on this website is intended to create an attorney‑client relationship. An attorney-client relationship may only be established through direct attorney‑to‑client communication that is confirmed by the execution of an engagement agreement.

As with any legal issue, it is important that you obtain competent legal counsel before making any decisions about how to respond to a subpoena or whether to challenge one, even if you believe that compliance is not required. Because each situation is different, it may be impossible for this article to address all issues raised by every situation encountered in responding to a subpoena. The information below can give you guidance regarding some common issues related to subpoenas, but you should consult with an attorney before taking any actions (or refraining from acts) based on these suggestions. This post will also focus on New Jersey law. If you receive a subpoena in a state other than New Jersey, you should immediately seek the advice of an attorney in your state, as certain rules differ in other states.

Disclaimer: Recognition by Legal Awards

The legal awards and recognitions mentioned above do not constitute an endorsement or guarantee of future performance. These honors reflect an attorney's past achievements and should not be considered as predictors of future results. They are not intended to compare one lawyer's services with those of other lawyers. The process for selecting an attorney for these awards can vary and may not include a review of the lawyer's competence in specific areas of practice. Potential clients should perform their own evaluation when seeking legal representation. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.