Has been defined as not doing something that a reasonable man would do or doing something that a reasonable man would not do?

Before a party can be held accountable for an injury caused by negligence, it must be determined whether the defendant acted as a “reasonable person” would have in a similar situation. Negligence is present if there is a failure to behave with the degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise. Therefore, the conduct of a “reasonable person” weighs heavily upon an injury case.

The “Reasonable Person” Standard

The “reasonable person” is a hypothetical individual who approaches any situation with the appropriate amount of caution and then sensibly takes action. It is a standard created to provide courts and juries with an objective test that can be used in deciding whether a person’s actions constitute negligence. This does not mean they must be perfect. Mistakes are made, and when it is an error that is reasonable under the circumstances, a person may not be liable. There are also unavoidable accidents in which injuries occur, or cases that are impossible to tell what a person did in the critical moments. However, when it is clear how a “reasonable person” would have behaved, and a defendant fails to act according to that standard, they may be considered negligent in any kind of personal injury case.

For example, a driver who speeds through an unmarked intersection without stopping did not behave in a reasonably prudent manner. A reasonably prudent driver would have slowed and completely stopped, in an effort to avoid a possible accident in this unsafe situation; as they would be aware that another vehicle could be coming at any moment.

How the Reasonable Person Affects Your Claim

A successful negligence-based claim hinges on the plaintiff’s ability to prove a defendant did not act reasonable. This involves showing that the risk of harm was foreseeable, which means the defendant was aware of their actions being wrong; as well as establishing the alternative action which a reasonable person would have taken. The jury will objectively consider the individual’s conduct based on the person’s knowledge, awareness, and mental capacity to behave similarly to a reasonable person. The law, though, will not make unique allowances for beginners, learners, or trainees in a special skill. They are held to the same level of care or conduct that a person who is reasonably skilled would exercise.

Exception to the “Reasonable Person” Standard

Children are the exception to the “reasonable person” standard, as they are typically not expected to act similarly to how an adult would. Courts hold them to a modified standard instead. Under this guideline, their conduct is compared to that of other children who are the same age and alike in their amount of experience and knowledge. However, there are certain jurisdictions such as driving, in which the adult standard of care does apply.

Contact Us for a Free Case Evaluation

If you or someone you love has suffered an injury due to someone else’s failure to act as a “reasonable person,” you may be entitled to compensation. Our New York City personal injury lawyers extensive experience holding defendants liable in cases of negligence, and have recovered more than $2 Billion for clients over the last 10 years. Call our office at (212) 732-9000 and speak to a highly skilled attorney for free today.

To be negligent is to act, or fail to act, in a way that causes injury to another person. But no one's perfect and accidents happen to the best of us. What separates a common accident from an act of negligence, however, is the "standard of care" required in a given situation. By neglecting the proper standard of care for a given situation, an individual may be found liable for any resulting injuries.

For example, a motorist must exercise the same care that a "reasonable person" would in the same situation, which includes obeying traffic laws and paying attention to pedestrians and other drivers. But if a severely nearsighted driver who forgets to wear his glasses hits a jaywalking pedestrian, he would be considered negligent because a reasonable, severely nearsighted person would not drive without glasses or contacts.

Negligence, the Reasonable Person, and Injury Claims

The so-called reasonable person in the law of negligence is a creation of legal fiction. Such a "person" is really an ideal, focusing on how a typical person, with ordinary prudence, would act in certain circumstances. The test as to whether a person has acted as a reasonable person is an objective one, and so it doesn't take into account the specific abilities of a defendant. Thus, even a person who has low intelligence or is chronically careless is held to the same standard as a more careful person or a person of higher intelligence.

A jury generally decides whether a defendant has acted as a reasonable person would have acted, in addition to the other elements of a negligence case. In making this decision, the jury generally considers the defendant's conduct in light of what the defendant actually knows, has experienced, or has perceived.

For example, one may consider a defendant working on a loading dock and tossing large bags of grain onto a truck. In the process of doing this, the defendant notices two children playing near the truck. The defendant throws a bag towards the truck and unintentionally strikes one of the children. In this instance, a jury would take into account the defendant's actual knowledge that children were playing in the area when the jury determines whether the defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances. One must note, however, that the defendant would be liable for negligence only if the defendant owed a duty to the child.

In addition to the defendant's actual knowledge, a jury also considers knowledge that should be common to everyone in a particular community. Accordingly, the defendant in the example above would be charged with knowing that a bag of grain could injure a child, as well as with knowing the natural propensities of children.

Negligence and the Reasonable Person: Children

A child generally is not expected to act as a reasonable adult would act. Instead, courts hold children to a modified standard. Under this standard, a child's actions are compared with the conduct of other children of the same age, experience, and intelligence. Courts in some jurisdictions, however, apply the adult standard of care to children who engage in certain adult activities, such as driving a car.

Talk to a Lawyer to Learn More About Negligence and the Reasonable Person

If you or a loved one has been injured through negligence -- something a 'reasonable person' wouldn't have caused -- it means someone failed to act in a reasonable manner, and is therefore liable for any injuries that resulted. But how strong of a case do you really have, and is it worth pursuing? You can find out today by discussing your case with an experienced personal injury attorney in your area.

Has been defined as not doing something that a reasonable person would do or doing something that a reasonable person would not do?

Has been defined as not doing something that a reasonable person would do or doing something that a reasonable person would not do Mcq?

What do you mean by reasonable man?

What a reasonable person would do?