The Reasonable Person Standard and How It Is Used (2024)

What Is the Reasonable Person Standard?

Every state gives you the right to pursue a legal claim when you suffer a personal injury as a result of someone else’s negligence. However, negligence itself is defined by each state, and you will often see variations in the application of the concept as a result.

Be that as it may, negligence comprises four key elements no matter how it is applied:

• Duty of care

• Breach of duty

• Proximate cause

• Damages

The relationship between the parties is what creates the duty of care. Drivers owe a duty of care to their fellow road users, for instance, just as doctors owe a duty of care to their patients. Property owners and managers owe a similar duty to visitors to their premises to prevent slip and fall injuries.

Each of these sets of duties is based on the reasonable man standard: People in these situations are expected to act with reasonable care and prudence in their actions toward those they owe a duty to.

A breach of duty happens when the person acts or fails to act in a way expected of their objective and a reasonably careful person in the same circumstances. That means the party’s actions are not judged against any specific person, including themselves. Instead, they are judged against what an ordinary, prudent person would have done in their position.

Unfortunately, that standard requires some imagination by a claims adjuster or juror. No guidebook exists to explain what a reasonable person would do in every situation they encounter. Instead, that hypothetical person’s decisions and actions must be imagined based on the facts involved in the case at hand.

Applying the Reasonable Person Test

At the end of a personal injury case, the judge instructs the jury. In negligence cases, these instructions will explain the reasonable person standard and how it can determine negligent acts to a jury of non-lawyers.

Generally, states do not instruct juries on how to decide what a reasonable person would have done. Nevertheless, explaining how to apply a reasonable person test is difficult because of its complexity. It can be viewed more as a set of principles than a one-sentence, yes or no question.

A jury will often be instructed to consider the following concepts when applying the test:

Intent

Intent is not necessary. In other words, a victim does not need to prove that the other party intended to act unreasonably. Instead, they only need to show that a reasonable person would have acted differently and that the other party failed to meet that level of care. They do not even need to show that the other party knew better. Negligence exists when a reasonable, law-abiding person would have known to act differently.

Thus, you would not need to prove a trucking company knew the signs of drug abuse when it allowed a driver to work while high. Instead, you only need to show that a reasonable trucking company would have educated itself about recognizing when drivers were not in a condition to work.

Objective

Since the reasonable person standard is objective, the victim does not need to explain why the other party acted or failed to act the way they did. They only need to show that the other person should have known their actions would create an unreasonable risk of injury or death.

Flexibility

Despite being objective, the reasonable person test is also flexible, as it accounts for both the person’s unique position and circumstances. For example, the standard of reasonable care for a professional is the same as that of an ordinary person. However, the “reasonable person” used will usually be a “reasonable professional.”

As such, the test in cases regarding medical malpractice, for instance, is sometimes referred to as the professional standard of care. It does not consider what an ordinary person would have done but what an ordinary doctor would have done. Thus, a medical malpractice lawyer needs evidence of the standard treatment protocols for your situation.

Similarly, construction defect cases involve tailoring the reasonable person test for a reasonable engineer, architect, or building contractor.

The test also accounts for the situation faced by the party. Specifically, the reasonableness of a person’s actions may be affected by the circumstances. As such, a doctor working during a blackout after an earthquake in an emergency room full of patients might be judged differently than the same doctor working in perfect conditions.

Acts or Omissions

Many accident victims wonder which term is used to describe the failure to act as a reasonable person would act. Lawyers use the term “omissions” to describe a failure to act. Both acts and omissions can constitute negligence.

Suppose that a mechanic fails to torque a customer’s lug nuts after changing a tire. The mechanic’s omission could violate the reasonable man doctrine if a reasonable mechanic in the same situation would have acted differently.

Contact ConsumerShield for a Lawyer Referral

Most people need help understanding the concepts surrounding negligence. The reasonable person standard negligence law often hinges upon is one of the most complex. ConsumerShield can help you comprehend negligence and find a lawyer to explain how the reasonable law principle applies to your case.