You may hear many laws use the standard of a “reasonable person” in order to justify certain behaviors. For example, if a reasonable person would have acted in the same manner in a similar situation or if a reasonable person would have known their actions could cause harm. But, how does the law apply this reasonable person standard?
Who Is The Reasonable Person The Law Speaks Of?
It’s safe to say that most people may be skeptical of this reasonable person standard. After all, other standards like common sense don’t seem to stand up to scrutiny.
The reasonable person standard is used in order to account for societal and cultural factors that may affect behavior. It allows the jury and the court to consider the circumstances and determine if the defendant acted in a reasonable manner given the knowledge they had and how the issue presented itself. If the jury can say that a reasonable person may have made that mistake or decided to take that action, then it fits the reasonable person standard.
Let’s look at an example.
Let’s say the defendant is driving their car and stops at a T intersection, waiting to join the main traffic flow. They get a little impatient and enter at a gap that is a little tight, accelerating to try and push their way in.
Unfortunately, the oncoming driver did not have enough time to brake, and they ran into the back of the defendant. Following the car accident, the oncoming driver (referred to from now as the plaintiff) sues the defendant for damages. The jury examine the case to decide if a reasonable person would have taken the same action as the defendant. They look at pictures of the intersection and video of the collision captured by a conveniently located CCTV camera.
The jury decide that a reasonable person, not having the right of way, would have realised that the gap was too small to enter the intersection. A reasonable person would have known that because the main traffic flow had the right of way, they would be travelling at or around the speed limit and would not have anticipated someone pulling into the intersection. Because the defendant did not act as a reasonable person would have acted in their situation, the jury finds the defendant negligent.
Are The Jury Allowed to Apply The Reasonable Person Standard In a Subjective Manner?
Juries are instructed to apply the reasonable person standard in an objective manner, making a standard that they would be happy to apply to anyone in the same situation. While it is true that someone suffering from a mental illness may not react to things as a reasonable person would do, if that was the case, they should seek an insanity defense.
Reasonable Person Standard Exceptions
The only exception to the reasonable person standard is children because they may not have the life experience or cognitive ability to act like a reasonable person would. Juries are often instructed to determine if the child acted reasonably in comparison to how people in similar age groups and with similar knowledge and life experience would.
However, a minor is expected to act as a reasonable adult would when driving, so the exception would not apply.
Reasonable Person and Negligence
By showing that the defendant failed to act as a reasonable person would, the plaintiff is able to prove negligence. When the defendant failed to act in a reasonable manner, they caused harm to the plaintiff and thus their injuries. In order to use the reasonable person standard to prove negligence, the plaintiff must show the following:
- Show evidence that the defendant acted in the way the plaintiff claims
- Argue that the actions of the defendant do not meet the reasonable person standard
The plaintiff’s lawyer will use legal facts in order to persuade the jury that by not acting like a reasonable person would, the defendant put the plaintiff in danger and, therefore, was negligent.
It is up to the jury to decide if they believe the defendant acted like a reasonable person or not and if their actions constitute negligence.