Reasonable Person Standard: Legal Definition & Examples

Did the defendant use the level of care and caution that a normal person would have used in the same situation? That is, essentially, what the jury is asked to determine when applying the reasonable person standard.

The concept is often used in civil cases that involve negligence. Consider, for example, a case involving a driver running a red light and causing an accident. A reasonable person doesn’t drive through red lights, so if the driver did so, the jury would hold them responsible for any harm caused.

On the other hand, an unexpected mechanical failure that made the brakes fail is out of even the most reasonable person’s control. If that was the reason the driver ran the red light, the jury would most likely say the driver acted reasonably and was not responsible.

The reasonable person standard is applied in cases where a defendant owes a duty to others and may have breached that duty.

Here are some examples of when someone owes a duty to others:

• A driver owes a duty to other drivers to obey traffic laws and operate their car safely.
•  A shopkeeper has a duty to the public not to knowingly allow hazards and dangerous conditions in the store.
• A factory that produces toxic waste owes a duty to the public to dispose of it properly.

Who Is The Reasonable Person?

The reasonable person referenced in the reasonable person standard is a legal fiction meant to suggest a person of average caution, care and consideration. The term originated in the 19th century in English law.

The case Vaughn v. Menlove first created the standard—determining that a reasonable person would not have stacked hay in a dangerous manner next to a neighbor’s structure (as the defendant in that case did) because of the risk of fire.

In 1905, in McQuire v. Western Morning News, the court explained the reasonable person as a passenger on the “Clapham omnibus,” but not a literal, specific passenger.

Clapham was a working class suburb of London at the time, and an omnibus was a horse drawn precursor to a bus, a form of public transportation.

In the case, the court was clarifying that the standard is objective rather than subjective—that a jury could conclude that the defendant hadn’t acted as a reasonable person even if the defense offered “reasonable persons” as witnesses to testify that they’d have acted the same way.

Is The Reasonable Person Test Objective or Subjective?

The reasonable person is not a real person. There is no reasonable person who can be called to testify that they would definitely have run that red light. This is the point the court was making about the Clapham omnibus.

As such, the standard is an objective one—the specific knowledge of the defendant doesn’t matter. All that matters is what a reasonable person should have known, what would have been reasonable to do in that situation and what action the defendant took.

The type of person the defendant is, however, is sometimes taken into account. For example, a reasonable surgeon who may have committed medical malpractice will not be judged to the standard of the average person who lacks the skills or qualifications to perform surgery. They are held to the standard of care for their profession, regardless of their experience or training.

As in the case above, a reasonable surgeon would have exercised caution in performing surgery and would not, for example, leave a medical sponge inside a patient. If the defendant did leave a sponge in the patient, a jury would probably find them responsible for the patient’s injuries.

Consider the duty mentioned earlier concerning shopkeepers and the public. It’s certainly true that a shopkeeper who knowingly allowed a hazard like loose tiles on the floor of a shop would be responsible for a customer’s injuries. What if, however, the person who was injured wasn’t a customer but a burglar who broke in after hours?

A reasonable shopkeeper would have put up warnings around the loose tile or otherwise made sure customers were safe. After all, shopkeepers have a duty to customers.

Does the shopkeeper have a duty to a burglar who breaks in, though?

The burglar in this scenario can’t hold the shopkeeper responsible for their injury because a reasonable shopkeeper owed no duty to keep the burglar safe and could not foresee their entry. In fact, it would be perfectly reasonable for the shopkeeper to remove the warnings after the store closed so that repairs could start the next morning.

Perhaps the easiest way to discuss how a negligence case may use the reasonable person standard is with an example.

You may have heard of cases involving bartenders who are sued for overserving a customer. The question before a jury would be whether a reasonable bartender would have known that person should not have been served. The jury would consider all the facts in the case and compare the actions of the defendant to that of a “reasonable person” in the situation.

The jury would consider the following questions to establish the circumstances:

• Was the bartender working the whole time the customer was drinking?
• Was the bar busy, making it hard to keep track of what customers were drinking?
• Did others observe the customer as seeming clearly intoxicated?

Then the jury would determine what a reasonable person in that exact situation would have done. Would they have refused service or not? That determines if the bartender acted reasonably.

Limitations to the Objective Standard

Perhaps the most obvious limitation on the objective reasonable person standard is that people may have different definitions of reasonable. Juries can sometimes reach surprising conclusions. Imagine a jury with a few extremely cautious and fearful drivers—such a panel might think fairly common driving practices are unreasonable and judge a defendant more harshly.

One limitation the courts have placed on the objective standard has already been mentioned: the professional or expert who is held to the standard of a reasonable professional or expert rather than a reasonable average person.

Another limitation the courts have applied involves children. The actions of a child won’t be compared to those of a reasonable adult person unless they are engaged in adult activities. Anyone who has ever spent time around kids can attest that the most reasonable 7-year-old will act in ways a reasonable adult never would.

When you start to look at these exceptions, it may raise even more questions in your mind.

Should you judge a medical student or a doctor in the first year of a surgery residency in the same way you might a surgeon with 20 years experience?

How should you judge a 17-year-old?

What about someone who’s 20?

These questions are often in the arguments that attorneys make and in the minds of jurors, even if the instructions call for them to apply an objective reasonable person standard when reaching a verdict.

Read more about related topics, such as libel and slander.