The Reasonable Person Standard – How it Applies to Tort Law

It’s impossible to determine liability without setting a baseline form of right and wrong. In personal injury law, this baseline is called the reasonable person standard.

What’s considered negligent or normal behavior depends on the situation each party finds themselves in. The reasonable person standard serves as a foundation when determining who’s at-fault and who was acting lawfully at the time.

This standard changes from case-to-case, and it can be hard to establish for complicated cases involving severe injury. That’s when you need a personal injury attorney to determine who was acting reasonably and who acted negligently.

What is the Reasonable Person Standard? 

The reasonable person standard, also called the ordinary care standard, is a personal injury term used in determining if an individual’s actions were reasonable or negligent.

Every person has a duty to act reasonably and prevent or avoid actions that needlessly endanger those around them. Those who fail to do so are liable to the injuries or losses that result from their unreasonable actions.

The reasonable person standard always asks the question, “What would a reasonable person do in this situation?”

Failing to act objectively may have them subject to a breach of duty of care and may be punished for the severity of their actions.

Why We Need the Reasonable Person Standard

It’s key to understand the reasonable person standard as it determines how insurance companies, judges, and attorneys analyze your case.

Personal injury is a large industry that isn’t limited to traffic accidents, workplace injuries, dog bit attacks, malpractice, etc. In tort law, personal injury is a major driving factor necessary to enforce regulations while remedying harm caused by an individual’s reckless behavior.

According to the National Safety Council (NSC), about 63 million people (about 1 in 5) sought medical treatment for a non-fatal preventable injury in 2022. Furthermore, preventable-injury-related deaths in the United States suffered approximately 227,039 incidents.

Examples of the Reasonable Person Standard in Tort Law

Some examples of reasonable personal standards in tort law are:

Auto Accidents

• Running a red light and hitting another car rather than stopping.
• Drunk driving and causing casualties rather than calling a rideshare driver to pick you up.
• Failing to slow down during heavy weather conditions, then hydroplaning and causing an accident.

Slip and Falls

• Multiple customers in the store reported spilled liquid, but no action was taken and an elderly lady slipped and fell.
• Poorly maintained stairs and walkways at an apartment complex without proper signage, causing residents to fall through floors.
• The company lacks appropriate safety boots and gear as a construction worker, causing a major struck-by injury.

Medical Malpractice

• Nurses provided the wrong dosages and medication to the patient and failed to warn them about side effects.
• An instrument was accidentally left inside the patient after surgery was done.
• Giving too much anesthesia which causes the patient respiratory distress or possibly death.

These examples violate the reasonable person standard because a level-headed person would certainly act differently if they were in the same situation.

It may be difficult to assess what a reasonable person should do in certain complicated personal injury claims. If you find yourself in that situation, call a legal specialist to properly analyze your case.

Is the Reasonable Person Standard the Same for Everyone?

The reasonable person standard applies to adults or those ages 18 and older depending on the state’s law. There are exceptions, such as children in certain age groups, those with cognitive disabilities, actions under an emergency, and many others.

Children

The reasonable person standard may not apply the same way to children as courts don’t expect children to act reasonably in every circumstance. Children ages 7–14 may also be incapable of negligence in most situations, but evidence can be used to dispute these presumptions.

Courts decide the reasonable person standard for children by comparing the actions of other children in similar ages who experienced similar situations. There are even specific legal doctrines that determine liability for children, such as the attractive nuisance standard.

Despite the age, high-risk activities are an exception to these rules, such as if a child is driving on the road or flying a plane.

Cognitive Disabilities

Another exception may be individuals suffering cognitive disabilities that significantly affect their ability to understand risk, make reasonable decisions, or control their behavior.

The court would have to investigate the extent of their disability and assess how it affects their behavior. A legal defense may be raised to argue that the individual isn’t capable of acting reasonably due to their impairment.

Actions Under an Emergency

Sometimes, an action under an emergency may be an exception to the reasonable person standard. People may not act reasonably under a tense situation, and that can change the court’s expectations on reasonable actions.

A clear example is if you quickly swerve your vehicle to avoid potentially hitting a pedestrian. The court may view this as an exception or being taken under an emergency.

Subject Matter Experts

Subject matter experts are professionals like lawyers or doctors with extensive knowledge of personal injury cases.

Depending on their knowledge and skills, subject matter experts may be held to a different standard under tort law.

For example, surgeons are expected to not leave foreign objects in their patients after an operation. Truck drivers are held to a higher standard as they’re responsible for a large vehicle that can cause devastating harm.

How to Prove the Reasonable Person Standard

Proving the reasonable person standard depends on the person’s degree of negligence. If a person was hurt due to negligence, here are four important things to follow,

1. The defendant owed you a legal duty of care.
2. The defendant breached that duty of care.
3. Injuries were caused due to the breach.
4. You sustained property damage and injury due to their negligence in exercising the duty of care.

The reasonable person standard can be proven with substantial evidence that the negligent party did not act as any ordinary person would in the given situation.

When assessing reasonable standards, one would have to look for foreseeable risks, severity of potential injury, and preventative measures the defendant could’ve taken.

Courts may compare your accident to a similar case in the past to determine what a reasonable person would do. It’s always good to do research and see how judges ruled on previous cases that influenced the reasonable person standard in the future.

Consequences of Failing to Act as a Reasonable Person

Those guilty of violating the reasonable person standard may face legal consequences if they hurt someone through their actions. Breaching their duty of care may cause them to be liable for the other person’s:

• Medical fees
• Lost wages
• Property damage fees
• Non-economic damages

Also, if the court deems they’re guilty of gross negligence or reckless behavior, the defendant may have to pay punitive damages determined based on their household income.

Find an Attorney to Support You Through the Legal Process

Find an attorney to support your case and assist you through the legal process. LegalASAP can help you seek the right personal injury attorney with our 500+ attorney network expanding across the United States. Find a lawyer as soon as possible to avoid going past the statutes of limitations in your state.

Submit a free short evaluation form here to see if you qualify for a claim. Contact LegalASAP for any further questions or inquiries at 888-927-3080.