I must agree I was not clear again. Here is the definition I actually use. Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. It is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community. Negligence also applies in a more stringent way to the failure to follow an agreed upon Standard of Care for a give procedure.

The following is what I use for the “Standard of Care” definition. It is the watchfulness, attention, caution, and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would exercise. If a person's actions do not meet the agreed upon standard of care for the profession, then his or her acts fail to meet the duty of care which all people (supposedly) have toward others. Failure to meet the standard is negligence, and any damages resulting there from may be claimed in a lawsuit by the injured party.

What I was trying to show is that the “Standard of Care” requirements surpasses that of “Reasonable or Ordinary Care”, and the relationship between the legal terms “Standard of Care” and “Negligence”. What I was expressing was my belief that there is little question in the legal community that there is no wiggle room in that a person is required (mandatory) to act in a specific way to met what he or she believes to be the “Standard of Care” for there profession. If you agree this document(s) is the Standard of Care for your profession, there is no choice but to follow the requirement set forth in the document. If one chooses not to follow to the letter these standards they can be found to be negligent.

Where Ordinary Care’s definition leaves room for argument as to what a reasonable person would or would not do faced with a particular set of circumstances because there is nothing in writing to suggest what should be followed, the Standard of Care gives the person a specific set of requirements to be followed and if they are not followed there is no question as to the negligence. At this point the person would need to prove there was a good reason for not following the protocol set in the Standard of Care not to be found negligent.

I believe we agree on the main point that you make, “If someone deviates from the "standard of care” that is clearly evidence of negligence.” The main point the investigator must understand is “Standard of Care” equals “Mandatory” unless other actions can be justified. Without the agreement that a specific Standard of Care hase been agreed upon, Ordinary or Reasonable Care definition must be applied.

Again this is my belief and I do not want anyone to take it as fact. I want them to conduct their own research to answer this question.