care

Charge or oversight; diligence. See "Negligence." The 'word "care," used in a statute defining embezzlement, is equivalent to "custody," and may mean "charge," "safekeeping," or "security." 110 111. 649.

Charge or oversight; implying responsibility for safety and prosperity. Webst Diet. It is used with reference to the degree of care required of bailees and carriers. For the utmost care, see Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Worthington, 21 Md. 275, 83 Am. Dec. 57S; Brand v. R. Co., 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 308; extraordinary care, Toledo, W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Baddeley, 54 111. 19, 5 Am. Rep. 71; great care, Brand v. R. Co., 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 308; especial care, Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Clark, 2 111. App. 110; proper and reasonable care, Neal v. Gillett, 23 Conn. 443; South &

In old English law. A quantity of wool, whereof thirty make a sarplar. (The latter is equal to 2,240 pounds in weight.) St 27 Hen. VI. c. 2. Jacob.

Attention; caution; diligence; negligence is the gist of the matter, of negligence, but no violation of the V. Due; Ordinary; Reasonable; Slight.

As a legal term, this word means diligence, prudence, discretion, attentiveness, watchfulness, vigilance. It is the opposite of negligence or carelessness. There are three degrees of care in the law, corresponding (inversely) to the three degrees of negligence, viz.: slight care, ordinary care, and great care. Slight care or diligence is such as persons of ordinary prudence usually exercise about their own affairs of slight importance; ordinary care or diligence is such as they usually exercise about their own affairs of ordinary importance; and great care or diligence is such as they usually exercise about their own affairs of great importance. Civil Code Dak. § 2100. The exact boundaries between the several degrees of care, and their correlative degrees of carelessness, or negligence, are not always clearly defined or easily pointed out. We think, however, that by "ordinary care" is meant that degree of care which may reasonably be expected from a person in the party's situation, — that is, "reasonable care;" and that "gross negligence" imports not a malicious intention or design to produce a particular injury, but a thoughtless disregard of consequences, the absence, rather than the actual exercise, of volition with reference to results. 23 Conn. 443. Slight care is such as is usually exercised by persons of common sense, but careless habits, under circumstances similar to those of the particular case in which the question arises, and where their own interests are to be protected from a similar injury. Ordinary care is such as is usually exercised in the like circumstances by the majority of the community, or by persons of careful and prudent habits. Great care is such as is exercised under such circumstances by persons of unusually careful and prudent habits. Abbott.

Attention, caution, circumspection, vigilance, diligence. Due care. In cases where the gist of the action is negligence, implies not only that a party has not been negligent or careless, but that he has been guilty of no violation of law in relation to the subject-matter or transaction which constitutes the cause of action.2 Great care. The degree of attention which a very thoughtful man exercises toward securing his own interests. Ordinary care. That degree of care which every person of ordinary i Drudence takes of his own concerns.'* In the law of bailment, that degree of care which, under the same circumstances, a person of ordinary prudence would take of the particular thing were it his own.^ Ordinary care, skill, and diligence is such a degree of care, skill, and diligence as men of ordinary prudence, under similar circumstances, usually employ.5 Ordinary care implies the exercise of reasonable diligence, and reasonable diligence, as between a corporation and its employees, implies such watchfulness, caution, and foresight as, under all the circumstances of the particular service, a coi*poration controlled by careful, prudent officers ought to exercise.* The same degree of care which a railroad company should take in providing and maintaining its machinery must be observed in selecting and retaining its employees, including telegraphic operators. Ordinary care on its paii; implies, as between it and its employees, not simply the degree of diligence which is customary among those intrusted with the management of railroad px'operty, but such as, having respect to the exigencies of the particular service, ought reasonably to be observed. It is such care as, in view of the consequences that may result from negligence on the part of employees, is fairly commensurate with the perils or dangers likely to be encountered.. A degree of care ordinarily exercised in such matters may not be due, or reasonable, or proper care, and therefore not ordinary care, within the meaning of the law." 1 Schreiber v. Butler, 84 Ind. 576 (1882). 2 Jones V. Inhabitants of Andover, 10 Allen, 20 (1865), Bigelow, C. J. » 2 Pars. C'ontr. 87, tit. Bailment. 4 [Heathcock v, Pennington, 11 Ired. L. 643 (1850), Eufttn, C. J. ' Brown v. Lynn, 31 Pa. 513 (1858), Williams, J. » Wabash Ry. Co. 1). Mc Daniels, 107 U. S. 460-61 (1882), Harlan. J. See also 26 Ind. 197; 74 Me. 497: 104 Mass. Eeasonajble care. The care and foresight which men of ordinary prudence are accustomed to employ.' Care exercised in proportion to the danger of doing harm to others.^ A relative term, with no ftxed meaning. The caution which persons of ordinary prudence would exercise in any given case is "reasonable care" in law. That care which under some circumstances would be reasonable care might imder other circumstances be gross negligence.* Slight care. The degree of care which every man of common sense, though inattentive to his own affairs, applies to them.* See further Carrier; Caution; Di LieBNCs; Ddtt, 1; Knowledge, 1; Negligence; Prudence.