This article presents an overview of the legal concepts and characteristics of the reasonable person, including doctors, judges and jurors in cases of personal injury, medical negligence, informed consent and refusal of treatment.The reasonable person is the legal standard for lawful behavior, a concept created by appellate courts whose decisions are memorialized as common law, or case law. It is a fictional or hypothetical person who approaches any situation with the appropriate amount of caution, and then takes action sensibly.? If the person’s behavior is as good or better than a fictional, reasonable person in the same situation, his or her actions are not negligent.?Conversely, if the person’s conduct falls short of what . a fictional, reasonable person, would do under the same circumstances, his or her actions are negligent.. At common law, it the .negligence results in an injury when a .person acts neghgendy, she or he is subject to legal liability.Historically, in 1837, an English court of common pleas established in Vaughn v. Menlove, that at common law, the reasonable person standard is objective, as opposed to subjective. A farmer piled a haystack near his neighbor’s cabin. Subsequently, the haystack caught fire andbumed his neighbor s cabin down, and Ute netghhor sued. The tanner argued that he should not be hable because he genuinely dtd not constder that the haystack may cause hrs neighbor s cabin to bum down. The jury found that the tanner s acbons were uhjeatvriy unrcusumthte. The court held he Burner to the The conduct of a reasonable person weighs heavily upon an injury case. To hold a person accountable for an injury caused by negligence, it must be determined whether or not the defendant acted as a reasonable person would have in a similar situation. Failure to behave with the degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise represents negligence.
展开▼
