1. Aim: How do we use the reasonable person standard to determine if there was negligence?
Do Now: On each post it describe the actions of an individual who never does anything wrong?
For example:
Always wears his/her seatbelt
Never texts while crossing the street
Always double checks his homework assignments.

2. List the 10 most important qualities of a person who “doesn’t do anything wrong.”
Share out
What does this activity tell you about the “reasonable person standard”
subjective

3. Objective Standard
The reasonableness of D’s conduct is viewed under an objective standard.
The question:
WOULD A REASONABLE PERSON OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE IN DEFENDANT’S SITUATION, ACT AS D DID?
In other words, D does not escape liability merely because she intended to behave carefully or thought she was behaving carefully.
Remember in a negligence case intent is irrevelant.

4. Reasonableness UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
The questions of reasonableness is whether D behaved reasonably “under the circumstances.”
Circumstances included the physical characteristics of D himself. These may include but are not limited to:
Physical disability
Mental characteristics
Intoxication
Children

5. Circumstances: Physical Disability
If Defendant has a physical disability, the standard for negligence is what a person with that physical disability would have done.
What do you think the standard should be?
Blind
Deaf
Attention Deficit
Autism

6. Physical Disability Example
P is blind and is struck while crossing the street using a cane. If the issue is whether P was contributorily negligent, the issue will be whether a blind person would have crossed the street in that manner.
What are some factors you would consider to determine if P was negligent?
Sometimes in negligence cases both parties are negligent and as a result blame is apportioned to both the plaintiff and the defendant.

7. Circumstances: Mental Characteristics
The ordinary reasonable person is not deemed to have the particular mental characteristics of D.
Example: If D is more careless or stupid, than an ordinary person, this will not be a defense.

8. Mental Disability: What should be the ‘standard of care”?
If an individual is so mentally impaired or insane that they are not able to appreciate the inherent danger of their actions or that a danger even exists, is it possible to for these individuals to be considered negligent?
Reasonable person standard?
Person with same mental disability under the circumstances?
Not capable of negligence?

9. Circumstances: Intoxication
Intoxication is NO defense. Even if D is drunk he/she is held to the standard of conduct of a reasonable sober person.

10. Circumstances: Children
A child is held to the same level of conduct of a reasonable person of that age and experience, not that of an adult.
Exception: Adult Activity – where a child engages is a potentially dangerous activity normally pursued only by adults, he/she will be held to the standard of care that a reasonable adult doing that activity would exercise.

11. Example: Children and Adult Activities
If D operates a motorboat, an activity that is potentially dangerous and normally pursued by adults, D must match the standard of care of a reasonable adult boater.