The Reasonable Person Standard

In negligence, there are four elements that must be proven before a person can truly be deemed negligent. One of the most important parts of proving any negligence claim is that the person who supposedly was negligent breached the duty owed to the individual. To determine if a breach has occurred, the actions of the negligent individual are compared to those of the reasonable person.

The reasonable person varies, somewhat, from jury to jury in that each jury will have a different idea of what an ideally reasonable person will do in a situation. Overall, the person is not a true person but rather an amorphous ideal of a person. As the individual is amorphous, the jury or fact finder is able to adjust the standard based on the facts of the case. For example, doctors are held to the standards of reasonable doctors rather than just reasonable people.

Once it has been decided to whom the allegedly negligent individual should be compared, the comparison is allowed to begin. This is typically not a drawn out process but can be. It may be a deliberation among the jurors or be so obvious that it only requires a mental account of the actions of the allegedly negligent as compared to those of the reasonable person.

Once it has been proved that there was a breach of duty, most of the time it only needs to be proved later that the harm existed and that there was a duty in the first place.

Contact a Philadelphia Personal Injury Lawyer

If you have been injured by someone’s negligent actions, contact a Philadelphia personal injury lawyer of Lowenthal & Abrams, P.C. at 215-238-1130.