Pat, a couple of issues that I would like to point out from the definitions quoted:

1. “Standard of care. In the law of negligence,..." this first part of the definition suggests that the evaluation of "standard of care" is a retroactive or historical evaluation, since some claim of negligence must have been raised. The actions will be evaluated, in retrospect, against what a reasonably prudent person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. Arguably, we can say that if 921 is the "standard of care" (SoC) we will apply its tenets before an allegation of negligence can be raised, and therefore avoid that claim. The way I read this issue is that, while 921 should be followed in principle and practice, it does not prevent us (for example) from disagreeing on the origin and cause of a fire and one of us being accused of negligence and a failure to follow the SoC - 921. But applying the principles of 921 does not necessarily mean that every investigator will arrive at the same answer - perhaps neither are negligent, and perhaps neither violated the SoC. This is my only fear when it comes to calling 921 a "Standard" or "Standard of Care" - that it will be used (inappropriately in my opinion) to suppress dissenting opinion.

2. “Standard. Stability, general recognition, and conformity to established practice… A type, model, or combination of elements accepted as correct or perfect." - except for the "perfect" term, I'll agree that 921 is as currently correct as our profession and current knowledge allows. But, it is clearly not perfect and I believe never will be. Once it's perfect, we won't need to conduct any further testing or research and we'll stagnate.

The other problem with some of the discussions, especially in court, regarding what a reasonably prudent person (more PC than the reasonable "man") would do is that the court only considers what a small sample of the community would have done, and that segment usually disagrees with each other. You say "a reasonably prudent fire investigator would have done X" and I say "a reasonably prudent fire investigator, and I believe that I am one, would have done Y" - opposing experts and a very small sample on which to decide reasonableness - and one will be "right", one will be "wrong" but perhaps neither were. If your testimony is excluded, or your side loses the case, does it mean that you were actually wrong or "unreasonably imprudent"?

Steve