It can be difficult to apply an objective benchmark because everyone is different and has different backgrounds, knowledge, and experience. One person might think that a small piece of yellow tape is enough to warn a customer of a wobbly handrail, while another might not. Most of the decisions we make every day are subjective without a strict objective standard. Once you understand what the standard is for a reasonably prudent person and how it is applied, you need to be prepared to prove your case before the jury. As an injured victim, it is up to you to prove all the elements of the case. Demonstrating how the responsible party failed to meet the standard of reasonable care is an essential part of your claim. If you are part of a personal injury case, understanding the standard for an appropriate person and the definition of the standard of care can help you prepare for your case and know what to expect from the court process. Here`s what our personal injury lawyers want you to know about the appropriate person standard in infringement law. The duty of care or standard of care is the minimum level of care that must be taken not to be considered negligent as a reasonable person would in these circumstances. The duty of care depends on the facts and circumstances of a case, but can generally be understood to mean that the more dangerous or risky the activity, the more care it requires.
In cases where a human actor uses professional competence, the “reasonable person in the circumstances” test is raised to a standard for determining whether the person acted as a “reasonable professional would have done in the circumstances”, whether or not that actor was a professional, and regardless of the level of training or experience of that particular actor. [29] Other factors also come into play, such as the level of training of the professional (i.e. whether he is a specialist in the relevant field or only a general practitioner in the profession) and the usual practices and general procedures of similar professionals. However, these other relevant factors are never determinative. The reasonable person standard applies in cases where a defendant has a duty to another and may have breached that duty. Therefore, the standard is objective – the precise knowledge of the accused does not matter. The only thing that matters is what a reasonable person should have known, what would have been reasonable in that situation, and what steps the defendant took. The success of a negligent claim depends on the plaintiff`s ability to prove that a defendant did not act reasonably. This includes evidence that the risk of harm was foreseeable, meaning that the defendant knew his or her actions were wrong; and the identification of alternative measures that a reasonable person would have taken.
The jury will objectively examine the person`s behaviour based on their knowledge, conscience and mental ability to behave in the same way as a reasonable person. However, the law does not make special provision for beginners, learners or trainees with a special ability. They shall be detained with the same care or conduct as a reasonably qualified person would exercise. Let`s look at an example of how the reasonable people standard affects a legal case. Suppose a driver is driving on the road. You are approaching an intersection. The traffic light turns red and the driver has enough time to stop. The concept is often used in civil cases involving negligence.
Let`s take the example of a driver who crosses a red light and causes an accident. A reasonable person does not cross red lights, if the driver did, the jury would hold him responsible for any damage caused. Vaughn v. Menlove first created the standard – the conclusion that a reasonable person would not have dangerously stacked hay next to a neighbour`s structure because of the risk of fire (as the defendant did in this case). However, the type of person who is the defendant is sometimes taken into account. For example, a reasonable surgeon who may have committed medical malpractice will not be judged by the standard of the average person who does not have the skills or qualifications to perform surgery. They are required to meet the standard of care for their profession, regardless of their experience or education. The reasonable person standard is largely taken into account for children. The standard here requires a child to act in a manner similar to what a “reasonable person of the same age, intelligence and experience would act in similar circumstances.” [25] In many common law systems, children under the age of 6 or 7 are usually exempt from civil or criminal liability because it is assumed that they cannot understand the risk associated with their actions. This is called the defense of childhood: in Latin doli incapax.
In some jurisdictions, one of the exceptions to these allowances is for children who engage primarily in high-risk adult activities, such as operating a motor vehicle,[26][27] and in some jurisdictions, children may also be tried for serious crimes such as murder “as an adult,” so the court does not consider the age of the accused. A review of the appropriate standard reveals that it depends on the facts of the situation. As a result, it is sometimes problematic to rely on a judge`s or jury`s interpretation of the facts and to apply an objective standard of care. Nevertheless, in a world where good and evil swim in a sea of shades of gray, the reasonable standard of the person is the best we have for balancing the consistency of the law with the nuances of life. While it is up to the jury to decide what is appropriate in a particular situation, the jury evaluates the behaviour based on an objective and reasonable person. They don`t look at what`s reasonable for a person. Instead, the test is an objective, unified assessment of behavior that applies to everyone in society. Very often, for example in the case of noise orders, the application of the law only serves the right to protection of a “reasonable person of normal sensitivity”. [52] [53] [54] If you were injured in an accident, you must prove your case against the reasonable person standard. Our Las Vegas attorneys can represent you and handle all aspects of your accidental claim.
When we represent you, Adam S. Kutner Accident & Injury Attorneys take care of every step of the constitution of your file. We can help you assess the case against the standard for a reasonable person, gather the evidence in your case, and fight for the compensation you deserve. The appropriate person test is an objective standard. The purpose of the reasonable person test is to provide the jury with a concrete and consistent standard when considering the actions of each party in a case.