Reasonable person standard

Tort law uses an objective standard in judging behavior it does not seek to determine whether a person performed as well as he or she could have done but whether the performance met the standard society imposes for all of its members acting under the same circumstances (28). The objective approach looks at how an ordinary reasonable person would react in the same situation. It does not consider a person s individual unique traits, but creates a fictitious majoritarian figure and utilizes that character as a standard. The rationale for the use of this method is that it creates uniformity in the law and ensures that society as a whole can rely on a certain standard of care from their fellow citizens. 

The first court decisions applied the same legal test to informed consent cases that was applied to negligence cases The practitioner was held to the standard of the reasonable person. Liability was imposed if the practitioner was found to have breached the duty to act as a reasonable practitioner would have acted under the same or similar circumstances. In determining the standard of care expected of the practitioner, the courts allowed other practitioners to testify concerning the warnings or disclosures that were necessary. Hence, the standard was a profession-set one, based on expert testimony and determined by the conduct of other practitioners. If the defendant practitioner provided that amount of information deemed to be reasonable by other practitioners, then a breach of duty did not occur. 

The reasonable patient standard is based on what a reasonable patient must know rather than on what a reasonable practitioner must divulge. Evidence is offered to establish what a pmdent person in the patient s position would have done if adequately informed of all significant risks. Patients no longer must obtain expert testimony, because the issue concerns what they need to know rather than what practitioners are reasonably expected to divnlge. 

The law holds every individual to a reasonable standard of conduct, and failure to exercise reasonable care creates liability if it results in harm to others. Accordingly, negligence may be defined as the omission to do something which a reasonable person, guided by those ordinary considerations which ordinarily regulate hmnan af irs, would do, or the doing of something which a reasonable and prudent person would not do. ... 

Under these circumstances, decisions are made for the patient using the best Interest standard. The object of the standard is to decide what a hypothetical "reasonable person would decide to do after weighing the benefits and burdens of each course of action. 

The twenty-one day period for self-reporting begins to run when any employee, contractor, or agent has an objectively reasonable basis for believing that a violation has, or may have, occurred. An objectively reasonable basis for belief is measured by a prudent person standard, and is based on what a prudent person with the same information would have concluded. ... 

Reasonable care is a relative term dependent on the circumstances and the party involved. The legal standard for reasonable care is the reasonable person who always acts prudently under the circumstances and is never careless or negligent. If the party happens to be a professional, the standard is raised. For example, a person who is qualified to work in a profession or trade requiring special skills is expected to act in a manner consistent with that of a prudent and careful surgeon, carpenter, accountant, or safety professional. The skill level and expectations are higher for a professional than they are for the nonprofessional in a given area. 

W. P. Keeton, D. B. Dobbs, R. E. Keeton, D.G. Owen, Prosser Keeton on Torts, West Publishing, Fifth Edition (Hornbook Series, pp. 185-193). If an individual is sued for ordinary negligence, the court will compare his/her behavior to what any reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. However, if a safety and health professional is sued for malpractice, the court will compare his/her behavior to what a reasonable member of the profession would have done. Professional standards are much higher and much better documented and often ANSI standards such as ZIO serve to satisfy the evidentiary burden and to determine the appropriate standard of care. 

The standard of care required might be said to be that amount of care that would be exercised in the same circumstances by a reasonable person. In fact, the degree will vary greatly according to the circumstances. 

The standard adopted by the courts is an objective one - what would a reasonable employer have done in the same situation In determining this standard of reasonable care several questions arise. When considering the employer s duty of care, should consideration include that the defendant, whilst an employer, may also be an entrepreneur and businessperson (and is therefore concerned to make a profit), or should safety override these considerations Where an employer s business involves risks to workers by the nature or method of operation, should the employer be subject to claims for damages on each occasion an employee is injured As an ordinary, reasonable person, can the employer be allowed to indulge in occasional oversight, slips or errors common to most members of society, or should the employer be considered to be infallible ... 

The extensive use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the semiconductor industry has been driven traditionally from the desire to protect the fab employee from the numerous chemical and physical agents in the fab environment. Another equally compelling goal is to isolate the worker from the wafer for process cleanliness reasons. The standard... 

Any review of NHTSA decisions about vehicle safety standards must recognize the assumption on which the safety mandate is based and the judgment required to interpret the directions given. The fundamental assumption is that there are too many traffic injuries and that regulatory action must be taken to reduce them to an acceptable level. The stated purpose of the Vehicle Safety Act is to reduce traffic accidents and death and injury from traffic accidents the assumption is that losses without the law are unacceptable. Motor vehicle safety is defined in the statute as vehicle performance which protects persons against unreasonable risks the assumption is that vehicle safety standards will reduce the risks to a reasonable level. Standards are supposed to be practicable in terms of several factors including the ultimate cost (if any) to the consumer. 

Apart from inspection and test records (clause 4.10.5), the standard does not require records to be authenticated, certified, or validated. A set of results without being endorsed with the signature of the person who captured them lacks credibility. Facts that have been obtained by whatever means should be certified for four reasons ... 

It was never discovered who installed this unauthorized substandard drain point. An attempt had been made to publicize the lessons of Feyzin, the company s standards, and the reasons for them. However, this did not prevent the installation of the drain point. Note that a number of people must have been involved. Besides the man who actually fitted it and his foreman, someone must have issued a work permit and accepted it back (when he should have inspected the job), and several persons must have used the drain point. Many must have passed b. If only one of them had recognized the substandard constmction and drawn it to the attention of those responsible, the fire would not have occurred [10]. 

Process workers often complain that valves are inaccessible. Emergency valves should always be readily accessible but other valves, if they are operated, say, once a year or less often, can be out of reach. It is reasonable to expect workers to get a ladder or scramble into a pipe trench at this frequency. Designers should remember that if a valve is just within reach of an average person then half of the population cannot reach it. Equipment should be placed such that at least 95% of the population can reach it. Guidance on specific measurements to achieve this objective is available in a number of standard human factors textbooks (see Bibliography). 

Many therapists use e-mail to interact with clients. The advantages to this process are that e-mail maximizes client access to the therapist while minimizing the intrusion of client contact into the therapist s personal time. Homework assignments can be discussed and clarified between sessions, and between-session questions answered. In addition, e-mail introduces the possibility that a client can access a therapist hundreds or even thousands of miles away. I am a firm believer that face-to-face therapy is ideal for many important reasons (e.g., developing the therapeutic alliance), but in those instances in which clients are isolated from good care, e-mail therapy can be a very attractive option. This option allows the possibility for equal access to the best available treatment and therapy resources even if those resources are not available to the client locally. In addition, as interactive telephones become more standard, therapy by phone may allow distance therapy to become more personalized, and this medium may ultimately supplant e-mail as a way to seek therapy from a distance. 

---