The reasonable person standard in a negligence lawsuit requires that a person act with the level of care that an ordinary, prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances. This standard is objective and is used to judge whether the defendant breached their duty of care by comparing their conduct to what a reasonable person would have done. If the defendant's actions fall below this standard, resulting in injury or damage to the plaintiff, they may be found liable for negligence. Essentially, the standard imposes an expectation that individuals must behave with ordinary care and caution to avoid causing harm to others.
What the Standard Imposes
- The person must act as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances.
- It requires a minimum level of prudence and common sense, not perfection.
- The conduct is judged objectively by jurors based on societal norms and common sense.
- A failure to meet this standard, causing injury, constitutes a breach of duty of care.
Elements of Negligence Related to the Standard
- Duty of Care: The person must owe a duty to act reasonably toward others.
- Breach of Duty: Their conduct falls below the reasonable person standard.
- Causation: The breach directly caused injury or damage.
- Damages: Actual harm or loss occurred.
Exceptions and Adaptations
- The standard may vary depending on context, such as higher care expected from professionals (doctors, emergency responders).
- Children or individuals with different capacities may be held to different, appropriate standards.
In summary, the reasonable person standard imposes the duty to act with ordinary care and prudence to avoid foreseeable harm to others, and failure to do so can result in liability for negligence in lawsuits.
