Also known as: prudent persons · reasonable person
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of conduct requiring exercise of the care, skill, and caution that a reasonably careful individual would use under similar circumstances. The standard is objective and measures behavior against what an ordinary person would do when facing the same facts and risks.
Paula Pierce, a dispatcher, received a report that a driver was exhausted after a double shift and that ice was forecast. She directed the driver to complete the overnight route anyway to avoid overtime costs. The bus later skidded on ice and killed a passenger. Her decision to proceed despite the clear warning constituted a gross deviation from the standard a prudent person would observe, supporting a finding of criminal negligence.
Portia Price told a colleague she had falsified loan documents to obtain a bank loan. The statement exposed her to civil and criminal liability. A prudent person in her position would have made the admission only if she believed it true, satisfying the requirement that the statement be against her pecuniary or penal interest.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Piper Patel, a contractor, failed to notice an obvious structural weakness in scaffolding she erected. A prudent person in her situation, knowing the purpose of the work and the visible conditions, would have perceived the substantial risk of collapse. Her failure to perceive it amounted to negligence under the governing standard.
Patrick Phan, a sitting judge, agreed to appear at a fundraiser for a political action committee that regularly litigates before his court. A prudent person would conclude that the appearance could undermine the judge's impartiality. The conduct therefore violated the rule against activities that appear to compromise judicial integrity.
Pierre Poulin misrepresented the mileage on a used truck he sold to Pedro Pacheco. A prudent person in Pacheco's position would have been induced to sign the purchase agreement by the false mileage figure. The misrepresentation was therefore material and supported rescission of the contract.
A twelve-year-old boy rode his bicycle at high speed through a crowded playground. A prudent person of like age, intelligence, and experience would have recognized the risk of colliding with younger children. Because the boy failed to conform to that standard, his conduct constituted negligence.
The prudent person standard is objective and measures conduct against what a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation. Good faith alone does not satisfy the standard when the actor's conduct deviates from that benchmark.
The standard appears in trustee administration duties, criminal negligence analysis, misrepresentation materiality, judicial conduct rules, and child tort liability. Each context applies the same objective benchmark of reasonable care under the circumstances.
The baseline remains the objective prudent person, but an actor's expertise may raise the expected level of care when the circumstances known to the actor include specialized knowledge.
No. A child is held only to the standard of a prudent person of like age, intelligence, and experience under like circumstances.
…or sanctioned. In criminal cases, this approach is exemplified by the refusal of courts to enforce vague statutes that no reasonable person could understand as forbidding the challenged conduct. There is no such problem here. Second is the general principle that "liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of…