In the U.S are judges, attorneys, physicians, teachers, professors,
politicians, administrative officers liable for ordinary negligence?
In the U.S., judges, prosecuting attorneys and legislators have absolute immunity from civil liability (but not from criminal liability) for legislative and judicial acts in their official capacity.
Attorneys have absolute immunity from civil liability from some claims from some people (e.g. defamation claims from non-clients for statements made in connection with representing someone) and qualified immunity from civil liability from others (e.g. most claims of non-clients) for their acts as lawyers, but are liable to their clients for ordinary negligence.
Physicians are liable to their patients for ordinary negligence in the nature of medical malpractice. Some acts taken by physicians that would otherwise constitute false imprisonment or assault or homicide are excluded from the definition of those crimes.
Elected officials in the executive branch including mayors, law enforcement officers and the attorney general have qualified immunity from civil liability for their official non-judicial acts. This means that they are only liable for intentional violations of constitutional rights that are clearly established in the law. Subject to narrow exceptions (e.g. driving or medical malpractice) they are not liable for ordinary negligence.
It is hard to know what kind of liability is contemplated for teachers and professors or administrative officers to answer. The answer would not be the same for all kinds of claims. Teachers of minors generally have the same immunities as a parent with respect to the use of physical force towards their students in order to maintain order in the educational process. The liability of teachers and professors also depends upon whether they are employed by public or private institutions. Those in public institutions often have more protections from liability, but also have exposure to civil rights claims that those in private institutions are not. Contractual waivers can also influence liability in these circumstances.
Everyone has liability for ordinary negligence in their unofficial capacity and for many acts (e.g. driving a car) while on duty but not involving activities particular to their professional responsibilities.
They are not employees or workers so that they could be reasonably
absolved for ordinary negligence.
We expect employees to be obedient so they have no moral
responsibility, if we held them liable we would harm the market people
would be reluctutant to enter a contract of employeement.
In the private sector, employees are usually liable for ordinary negligence that they personally commit, even though the employer is also liable.
Judges are employees and arguably workers as well. And, for their non-judicial acts, judges have the same liability as every other employee for their ordinary negligence. For example, if a judge gets in a car accident while driving from one courtroom to another, and harms another through negligence, the judge has personal liability for the judge's ordinary negligence and the judicial branch has vicarious liability for the negligence of its employee, the judge.
In all these of judges etc cases they receive more than enough
indenization for assuming responsibility.
By freeing them from ordinary negligence we are making them negligent.
Other than political economics why would the legislator free them from
Analysis of why the law is the way it is, or what it should be, are really better suited for Politics.SE than for Law.SE. I discussion of the why's of judicial immunity is appropriate for Politics.SE. A discussion of "judges etc" is probably to broad for either forum.