As anyone who has ever hired one knows, the question is a very good one.
Here's what the 11th says in response to the roofer's argument that you look to whether some schmuck on the street acted reasonably under the circumstances, as opposed to a "professional" standard of care:
ICW contends the district court erred by applying a “professional” standard of care in this case. Specifically, it argues that roofers are not “professionals” under Florida law, and, thus, the roofing company should be held only to the standard of an ordinary person, rather than to the standard of a professional. ICW argues that the jury should have been able to determine if the roofers acted as a reasonably prudent person would have acted under similar circumstances. The problem with this argument is that the roofers were not ordinary people who happened to be working on a roof. They were trained roofers, and therefore, the question is what a reasonably prudent roofer would do under similar circumstances. Without reaching the issue of whether roofers are “professionals” under Florida law, we hold that ICW was required to put forth some evidence of the standard of care in the roofing industry in order to meet its burden.Oh no -- roofers are expected to have some minimal level of professional competency in their work performance.
But this is Florida -- our workers are simply not used to that kind of thing!