I believe we are saying the same thing. I agree that reasonable and ordinary is mandatory, but this is not judged based on solely on something written in a document. Reasonable or ordinary care is such care as a reasonably careful and ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. This can be also based on knowledge and experience. Once a person agrees this one document is the standard of care that should guide the action taken, then their freedom for other ideas or concepts is lost.

I agree with you to the point that if the document being suggested as the standard of care for the profession has been generally accepted by the profession then the person would be required to follow the document or risk the possibility of being found negligent. My first question is there any data that supports 921has been accepted by a majority of the fire investigation community as a document that is considered the standard of care for fire investigators. By using this term I am meaning that it is mandatory that it be followed with the idea that if the investigator is found not to have followed the document they can be held negligent. From what you have said in the past, I am sure you agree that not following the recognized standard of care means the person did not exhibit reasonable or ordinary care as a reasonably careful and ordinarily prudent person in that profession would exercise under the same or similar circumstances had the standard of care been followed, thereby the person can be found libable and be forced to pay damages to the opposing party.

I more agree that 921 is a paradigm more than a standard of care. By considering it a paradigm we get away from the standard of care and negligence argument. Are we looking to use this document to educate or punish? If education is our purpose that the term “Paradigm” fits perfectly, however if the intended use is as a vehicle to punish those that do not follow the document then “standard of Care” may be the best term.