Question

In a negligence action, once the existence of a duty is established the second test is whether the defendant demonstrated sufficient care. But exactly how careful do we need to be to avoid liability? The reasonable person test is used by the court to establish standards of socially acceptable behaviour. In other words, the court asks, "what would a reasonably prudent person have done in this situation?" It is important to note that the standard using a reasonable person test is NOT the same as what would be expected of an average person A reasonable person is expected to be prudent or particularly careful, demonstrating a level of behaviour that is considerably better than average. To avoid liability for negligence the standard of care is reasonableness rather than average. If you choose to participate in this forum, please answer the following questions. 1. In your opinion, what is the difference between a reasonable person and an average person? 2. What is an example of something a reasonable person would do differently than an average person, when it comes to being careful? Your will need to make up a situation to provide an example.

Answer 1

1. A reasonable person is someone who is extra careful and responsible, going above the average level of behavior, while an average person represents the typical behavior of most people.
2. For example, in heavy rain, a reasonable person would drive slower, leave more space between cars, and use additional safety measures like headlights, while an average person might just drive at the normal speed and use basic precautions like windshield wipers.