Who is the Reasonable Prudent Person in Negligence?

The reasonable prudent person is the most important standard in tort law.

But who, exactly, is this person?

Is it she, you, me, him, or even him?

Stay to the end and learn more about how the law defines the reasonably prudent person.

Hello lawlings, this is Professor Beau Baez.

Today, we'll talk about negligence, which is the most prevalent tort in common law nations.

To establish that someone is negligent, the law generally uses the reasonably prudent

person's standard of care.

First, I will provide you some background for the standard and then I will explain it using

real cases and examples.

extra-legal fact

To discover more about the time, make sure to read the extra-legal fact at the conclusion.

when people not convicted of a crime were nonetheless killed for remaining silent.

Three categories of torts—intentional, strict responsibility, and negligence—are governed by tort law.

Duty is the first component of a negligence claim, and the defendant must uphold it.

to a specific standard of care.

Despite the fact that there are a number of criteria that can be used to determine duty, the default and most

a common standard is that of the reasonably prudent person.

This standard's origins may be traced all the way back to the famous Brown v. Kendall case in 1850.

Prior to 1850, the writ of trespass, which only needed to be used once, was used to prove tort liability.

some voluntary action by the defendant.

The Massachusetts High Court, however, dismissed the writ of trespass and established two torts instead: one based on fault and another based on intent.

The tort that is based on fault is now known as negligence.

In that case, Brown v. Kendall, one man was trying to separate two dogs, who were fighting.

So he picked up a large stick, and while lifting it over his head he quite accidentally hit the

other man right behind him, causing that man severe harm.

courts have further explained

The court held that the defendant was liable only if he failed to exercise ordinary care,

or what today we now call reasonable care.

"That sort and degree of care that thoughtful and intelligent people would use, such as is required by the urgency of the situation, and such as is necessary to protect" "Ordinary care" is defined by the court as "care taken against probable danger."

Since that time, courts have further explained what they mean by prudent and cautious men,

or again, what today we would call the reasonably prudent person.

First and foremost, the reasonably prudent person is a fictional person, completely hypothetical.

There is no person that always adheres to reasonable conduct in all that they do.

That’s impossible.

The standard is also objective, in the sense that we aren’t concerned with what the defendant

actually knew, but rather what they should have known.

The reasonable person is deemed to be an adult member of the community where the tort occurred,

with the average knowledge of a person from that community.

example

For example, a city person visiting the country will be deemed to know that you don’t walk

behind a horse because the horse might kick you.

In a case from one hundred years ago, a woman from Madrid, Spain was visiting Boston.

At the time, coal companies delivered coal to the front of homes, where holes were located

to move the coal down into the basements.

This Spanish woman had no idea the coal holes existed and fell into one.

The court found that the homeowner acted reasonably because the typical Bostonian, from that time,

was aware of the coal holes, and it was irrelevant that the Spanish woman was completely unaware of them.

Though the standard is objective, there are times when some subjective criteria are considered.

First, the law does consider physical disabilities, with one court observing that the law can’t

make a deaf man hear, or a blind man see.

This alters the standard of care to that of a reasonably prudent person with the same disability.

In my case, if I'm in a car accident, I am required to act as a reasonably prudent

person whose right eye is blind.

Though the law considers physical disabilities, it completely ignores a person’s mental

disabilities like schizophrenia or insanity.

bonus law fact

In one case, an older man with Alzheimer’s kicked his nurse, breaking her arm.

The court explained that his lack of mental control was not a basis for relieving him

of liability.

Finally, courts will take into account someone’s superior skills in determining what is reasonable.

For example, suppose that a roofer negligently installs a new roof.

The roofer will be held to a higher standard than professional roofers and not to that of

a typical member of the community.

After all, if you or I, average members of society set the standard, then roofers would

never be found liable for acting unreasonably.

Now, for today’s bonus law fact.

Until the 18th century, common law countries required all indicted criminals to plead guilty

or not guilty.

But the courts had a problem when someone remained silent and refused to plead.

This is because the courts viewed their jurisdiction as voluntary, and only those that made a plea

could be tried.

means forceful and hard punishment

So pray to tell, you might be wondering what happened to the silent defendant.

The courts had a process called Peine forte et dure, which is in Law French and translated

means forceful and hard punishment.

The goal behind this punishment was to get the defendant to plead so the trial could occur.

So here is what would happen to the silent defendant, or what was then called “standing mute.”

Out in the open where they could be seen by the public, they were strapped to the ground,

face up, naked except for a cloth to protect their private parts, and their arms and legs

extended in all four directions so that they could not move.

A heavy rock was then placed on their chest, with the hope that they would plead guilty

or not guilty.

never found guilty of the act they in fact committed

More rocks were then placed on their chest until they plead or they died.

The most famous case of crushing involved the Roman Catholic Saint Margaret Clitherow,

who died within 15 minutes after 700 pounds, 318 kilograms, were placed on her.

In some cases, it is reported that the crowds would take pity on the victims and would sit

on the rocks to hasten their deaths.

In addition to the cases from the United Kingdom, there is one reported case of pressing from

the American colonies.

You may be wondering, why wouldn't somebody just plea?

This is because these defendants were charged with crimes that would result in them losing

all their property if found guilty, and they were in fact guilty.

In Saint Margaret Clitherow’s case, she was in fact harboring Roman Catholic priests

in her home, which was treason at that time.

By choosing death by pressing, heirs would get an inheritance because the defendant was

never found guilty of the act they in fact committed.