What is the term used to define the failure to do what a reasonably careful and prudent person would do?

Q: What is the term used for failure to use such care as a reasonable prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances?

More Definitions of Negligence Negligence means simple negligence, the failure to exercise that degree of care that an ordinarily reasonable and prudent person exercises under like or similar circumstances.

Q: What is the term used for failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent?

Definition of negligence 1a : the quality or state of being negligent. b : failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances … his naivete and negligence had been the source of his problems.—

Q: Which term is defined as the failure to do something that a reasonable person would do under the same circumstances?

Negligence. The failure to use reasonable care that an ordinary prudent person would have used in a similar situation, resulting in harm or other loss.

Q: What is a reasonably prudent person?

A reasonably prudent person is an individual who uses good judgment or common sense in handling practical matters. The actions of a person exercising common sense in a similar situation are the guide in determining whether an individuals actions were reasonable.

Posted on behalf of Greg Monforton & Partners Injury Lawyers on February 27, 2020 in Personal Injury

Inhaltsverzeichnis Show

What Would a Reasonable Person Do in Certain Situations?
Exceptions to the Reasonable Person Standard
Reach Out to Our Firm to Learn More
Determining a Breach
Determining Whether There Was A Duty To Act
Determining Whether There Was An Injury
What is the term used for failure to use such care as a reasonable prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances?
What is the term used for failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent?
Which term is defined as the failure to do something that a reasonable person would do under the same circumstances?
What is a reasonably prudent person?

In most personal injury cases, the reasonable person standard is what is used to determine if negligence has occurred and whether that negligence is connected to the accident and any resulting injuries.

Our Windsor personal injury lawyers have helped many injury victims over the years prove negligence and establish liability in these cases. To find out if this standard applies to your situation, speak with our legal team during a free consultation.

Negligence occurs when a person acts or fails to act with the same degree of care a reasonable person would have used in the same situation. Under the law, the “reasonable person” (sometimes referred to as a “reasonably prudent person”) is a hypothetical person, and the defendant’s actions are compared to what the reasonable person would or would not have done in the incident in question.

This is an objective standard, which the defendant’s actions are compared against. When making this comparison, outside factors are not considered – it purely examines just the specifics of the claim. Characteristics of the defendant do not weigh on the matter, such as his or her maturity, intelligence, temperament or other attributes that could cause the defendant to act or fail to act in the situation at hand.

What Would a Reasonable Person Do in Certain Situations?

When determining if negligence did or did not occur in a personal injury case, a jury must determine what a reasonably prudent or careful person would or would not have done when placed under the same circumstances as the defendant.

For example:

A reasonable person would follow traffic laws. If the defendant’s failure to stop at a stop sign or traffic light caused the accident leading to the plaintiff’s injuries, the defendant could be found to have been negligent in the matter according to the reasonable person standard.
A reasonable person would regularly inspect conditions on his or her property for safety and take action to remedy dangerous conditions found on the property. If the defendant failed to notice dangerous conditions on his or her property or failed to take action to correct known dangers within a reasonable amount of time, he or she could be found negligent.
A reasonable person would leash his or her dog while walking in a public area. Even if it is not legally required, a reasonable person would still be expected to use a leash because it is a precaution taken to prevent an attack or unwanted contact with other individuals. If the defendant failed to leash his or her dog, he or she could be found negligent under this standard.

Exceptions to the Reasonable Person Standard

In cases involving children, children are generally not held to the same reasonable person standard that an adult would be. Instead, a child’s actions or lack thereof are compared to that of how a child of the same age and experience would or would not act in the same situation. Children are held to a different standard because they are limited in experience and may not yet be able to understand the consequences of their actions.

There are certain situations where a child would be held to the same reasonable person standard as an adult would be under the same circumstances. When the defendant is a minor who engages in an adult activity under the circumstances in question, his or her actions or lack thereof may be held to the reasonable person standard as an adult would be. These situations may include driving a vehicle or playing a high-impact sport.

Also, if the defendant is a person with advanced training, he or she may not be held to the same reasonable person standard that the average adult would be. Medical professionals such as doctors, nurses or EMTs (emergency medical technicians) would be held to a higher standard of care.

Reach Out to Our Firm to Learn More

If you were injured due to negligence that a reasonable person would not have caused, you may be eligible to pursue compensation for your medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering, among other damages. We know how to investigate accidents to determine if negligence has been committed.

Schedule a free, no-obligation consultation to learn more about your legal options. We charge no upfront fees and payment is only due if we recover compensation on your behalf.

Call Greg Monforton & Partners today at (866) 320-4770.

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:

the existence of a legal duty that the defendant owed to the plaintiff
defendant's breach of that duty
plaintiff's sufferance of an injury
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):

The defendant engaged in the creation of the risk which resulted in the plaintiff's harm
Voluntary undertaking: The defendant volunteered to protect the plaintiff from harm
Knowledge: The defendant knows/should know that his conduct will harm the plaintiff
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:

bodily harm
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).

What is the term used for failure to use such care as a reasonable prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances?

More Definitions of Negligence Negligence means simple negligence, the failure to exercise that degree of care that an ordinarily reasonable and prudent person exercises under like or similar circumstances.

What is the term used for failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent?

Definition of negligence 1a : the quality or state of being negligent. b : failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances … his naivete and negligence had been the source of his problems.—

Which term is defined as the failure to do something that a reasonable person would do under the same circumstances?

Negligence. The failure to use reasonable care that an ordinary prudent person would have used in a similar situation, resulting in harm or other loss.

What is a reasonably prudent person?

A reasonably prudent person is an individual who uses good judgment or common sense in handling practical matters. The actions of a person exercising common sense in a similar situation are the guide in determining whether an individual's actions were reasonable.