Is the failure to use the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise in that same situation?

To be negligent is to act, or fail to act, in a way that causes injury to another person. But no one's perfect and accidents happen to the best of us. What separates a common accident from an act of negligence, however, is the "standard of care" required in a given situation. By neglecting the proper standard of care for a given situation, an individual may be found liable for any resulting injuries.

For example, a motorist must exercise the same care that a "reasonable person" would in the same situation, which includes obeying traffic laws and paying attention to pedestrians and other drivers. But if a severely nearsighted driver who forgets to wear his glasses hits a jaywalking pedestrian, he would be considered negligent because a reasonable, severely nearsighted person would not drive without glasses or contacts.

Negligence, the Reasonable Person, and Injury Claims

The so-called reasonable person in the law of negligence is a creation of legal fiction. Such a "person" is really an ideal, focusing on how a typical person, with ordinary prudence, would act in certain circumstances. The test as to whether a person has acted as a reasonable person is an objective one, and so it doesn't take into account the specific abilities of a defendant. Thus, even a person who has low intelligence or is chronically careless is held to the same standard as a more careful person or a person of higher intelligence.

A jury generally decides whether a defendant has acted as a reasonable person would have acted, in addition to the other elements of a negligence case. In making this decision, the jury generally considers the defendant's conduct in light of what the defendant actually knows, has experienced, or has perceived.

For example, one may consider a defendant working on a loading dock and tossing large bags of grain onto a truck. In the process of doing this, the defendant notices two children playing near the truck. The defendant throws a bag towards the truck and unintentionally strikes one of the children. In this instance, a jury would take into account the defendant's actual knowledge that children were playing in the area when the jury determines whether the defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances. One must note, however, that the defendant would be liable for negligence only if the defendant owed a duty to the child.

In addition to the defendant's actual knowledge, a jury also considers knowledge that should be common to everyone in a particular community. Accordingly, the defendant in the example above would be charged with knowing that a bag of grain could injure a child, as well as with knowing the natural propensities of children.

Negligence and the Reasonable Person: Children

A child generally is not expected to act as a reasonable adult would act. Instead, courts hold children to a modified standard. Under this standard, a child's actions are compared with the conduct of other children of the same age, experience, and intelligence. Courts in some jurisdictions, however, apply the adult standard of care to children who engage in certain adult activities, such as driving a car.

Talk to a Lawyer to Learn More About Negligence and the Reasonable Person

If you or a loved one has been injured through negligence -- something a 'reasonable person' wouldn't have caused -- it means someone failed to act in a reasonable manner, and is therefore liable for any injuries that resulted. But how strong of a case do you really have, and is it worth pursuing? You can find out today by discussing your case with an experienced personal injury attorney in your area.

Examples of Negligence in a sentence

  • Negligence on the part of the Proposer confers no right for the withdrawal of the Proposal after it has been opened.

  • Negligence on the part of the proposer shall not constitute a right to withdraw the proposal after it is opened.

  • Negligence on the part of the Bidder confers no right for the withdrawal of the Bid after it has been opened.

  • Inthis issue, we explore a recent Texas Supreme Court case that fine-tunes anaction brought for Gross Negligence, raising the threshold inquiry frommere carelessness to an extreme degree of risk.

  • Negligence causing damage to company equipment, installations, tools and other belongings to the company.4.- The following come within the category, very serious: 1.


More Definitions of Negligence

Negligence means failure to use ordinary care. Ordinary care is the care which a reasonably careful person would use under similar circumstances. “Negligence” is doing something a reasonably careful person would not do under similar circumstances, or failing to do something a reasonably careful person would do under similar circumstances.

What is the failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the same circumstances?

Negligence: Failing to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances.

What is the failure to exercise reasonable care?

The level of care that a reasonable person would exercise in such circumstances. Failure to exercise reasonable care may lead to liability, if such a failure caused an injury; while exercise of reasonable care can establish that a party acted reasonably and is not liable.

What is the failure to act as a reasonable person acts?

Negligence is typically described as a failure to act with the prudence of a reasonable person.

What does it mean to exercise reasonable care?

reasonable care. n. the degree of caution and concern for the safety of himself/herself and others an ordinarily prudent and rational person would use in the circumstances.