What has been defined as not doing something that a reasonable person would do or doing something that a reasonable person would not do?

Definition

A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances.  The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct). 

Overview

Primary factors to consider in ascertaining whether the person's conduct lacks reasonable care are the foreseeable likelihood that the person's conduct will result in harm, the foreseeable severity of any harm that may ensue, and the burden of precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm § 3 (P.F.D. No. 1, 2005).  Negligent conduct may consist of either an act, or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so.  See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 282 (1965).

Four elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence: 

1. the existence of a legal duty that the defendant owed to the plaintiff
2. defendant's breach of that duty
3. plaintiff's sufferance of an injury
4. proof that defendant's breach caused the injury (typically defined through proximate cause)

Determining a Breach

When determining how whether the defendant has breached a duty, courts will usually use the Hand Formula (created by Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Carroll Towing): 

• If B < PL, then there will be negligence liability for the party with the burden of taking precautions
  • B=burden of taking precautions
  • P=probability of loss
  • L=gravity of loss (gravity of the personal loss, not social loss)

If the burden of taking such precautions is less than the probability of injury multiplied by the gravity of any resulting injury, then the party with the burden of taking precautions will have some amount of liability

Determining Whether There Was A Duty To Act

Typically, if the defendant had a duty to act, did not act (resulting in a breach), and that breach caused an injury, then the defendant's actions will be classified as misfeasance. There are several ways to determine whether the defendant had a duty to act (note: this is NOT an exhaustive list):

1. The defendant engaged in the creation of the risk which resulted in the plaintiff's harm

2. Voluntary undertaking: The defendant volunteered to protect the plaintiff from harm 

3. Knowledge: The defendant knows/should know that his conduct will harm the plaintiff
4. Business/voluntary relationships: ex: business owner and customer; innkeeper and guest; land possessor who opens her land to the public; person who voluntarily takes custody of another person

Determining Whether There Was An Injury

Typically in order to meet the injury element of the prima facie case, the injury must be one of two things:

1. bodily harm
2. harm to property (can be personal property or real property)

Pure economic loss will usually not meet the injury requirement. Sometimes emotional distress/harm may meet the bodily harm requirement (even if there is no accompanying physical harm). 

See also:

• The Harvard Bridge Project article on Negligence vs. Strict Liability from a law and economics perspective

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.