Any fact that would influence the decision of a reasonably prudent person is known as a…?

To be negligent is to act, or fail to act, in a way that causes injury to another person. But no one is 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. For instance, if a severely nearsighted driver forgets to wear his glasses and 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 focuses on how a typical person, with ordinary prudence, would act in certain circumstances. The test as to whether an individual 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 meeting 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 or should have reasonably known, experienced, or 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 of care to the injured plaintiff.

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 responsible for 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 or handling weapons.

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.

journal article

Singapore Journal of Legal Studies

(July 1997)

, pp. 185-239 (55 pages)

Published By: National University of Singapore (Faculty of Law)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24867213

Abstract

It has always been acknowledged that the duty of disclosure has suffered from an uneven development. Although the duty of utmost good faith has been recognised as a reciprocal one owed by both parties to an insurance contract, it is only in recent years that the duty as owed to the insured has seen any real development. However, although the Skandia litigation did result in a certain degree of clarification, it raised more questions than it answered. This paper will seek to examine some of the uncertainties brought about by the resurrection of this duty. It will further re-examine the issue of damages as a remedy for the breach of the duty, scrutinising in particular the reasons given by the Court of Appeal for rejecting such a remedy.

Journal Information

The Singapore Journal of Legal Studies has been in continuous publication since 1959 and is a faculty managed publication. Submissions are subject to anonymous peer review by subject specialists within and beyond Singapore. The Journal covers both domestic and international legal developments. Singapore, as an independent legal system founded on the English legal system, continues to draw guidance from the common law authorities of leading Commonwealth countries, including England, Australia and Canada, and sometimes, the USA.The Journal publishes articles on private and public international law as well as comparative law. It features topics with theoretical or practical appeal or a mixture of both. The Journal continues to interest lawyers, academics and observers in and outside the common law world. Indeed, it has been cited by leading common law courts such as the House of Lords, the Supreme Court of Canada, the High Court of Australia, the High Court of Malaysia and the Supreme Court of Singapore.

Publisher Information

SJLS is run by the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore from which it draws its Editorial Committee.

When conducting a CMA The listing price is typically based on which of the following?

When it comes to contracts for sale or lease in Alabama which of the following statements is true?