Also known as: reasonable prudent person · reasonably prudent person · reasonable person · prudent person
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of conduct requiring an actor to exercise the care, skill, and judgment that an ordinary person would apply under similar circumstances to avoid creating unreasonable risks of harm to others. The standard supplies the benchmark for determining breach in negligence claims and for measuring gross deviations that support criminal liability.
Roberto Reyes speeds through a residential zone at night while texting. He strikes and kills a pedestrian. The prosecution charges involuntary manslaughter. The jury measures Reyes's conduct against the reasonable and prudent person standard and finds a gross deviation that created a high risk of death.
Roland Rhodes tells a colleague he owes a large gambling debt to a known criminal. The statement is later offered at trial. The court admits it because a reasonable and prudent person in Rhodes's position would have made the statement only if he believed it true.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ricardo Rojas stores flammable chemicals near an open flame in his workshop. An explosion injures a visitor. The state charges criminal negligence. The fact finder concludes that a reasonable and prudent person in Rojas's situation would have recognized the substantial risk and that his failure to perceive it was a gross deviation from the required standard.
Renee Rogers, a sitting judge, accepts a paid position on the board of a company that regularly appears before her court. A party moves to disqualify her. The reviewing body finds that a reasonable and prudent person would view the role as undermining the judge's impartiality.
Rajesh Rao sells a parcel of land to Ryan Roberts and states that he holds clear title. Rao knows the statement is false. Roberts later discovers a lien. The court treats the misrepresentation as material because a reasonable and prudent person in Roberts's position would have been induced to sign the contract by the assurance of clear title.
A twelve-year-old riding a bicycle collides with a pedestrian. The pedestrian sues for negligence. The court instructs the jury to measure the child's conduct against the standard of a reasonable and prudent person of like age, intelligence, and experience rather than an adult standard.
The standard is objective. It measures conduct against what an ordinary person would have done, not against the defendant's own perceptions or intentions. A defendant who honestly but unreasonably failed to perceive a risk still breaches the standard.
The base standard remains that of the reasonable and prudent person, but an actor's special skills or training are part of the circumstances considered in applying that standard. A professional is therefore held to a higher level of care than a layperson in the same situation.
The standard is modified for children, who are measured against a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience. It is also modified for actors with certain physical disabilities. Mental deficiencies, however, do not alter the standard.
A statement is against interest if a reasonable and prudent person in the declarant's position would have made it only if believing it true. The standard supplies the objective test for whether the statement was so contrary to the declarant's interest that it carries sufficient reliability.
…Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul , 373 U. S. 132, 146 (1963). While it is doubtful that any State, or indeed any reasonable person, would argue that it is wise policy to allow students to carry guns on school premises, considerable disagreement exists about how best to accomplish that goal. In this circumstance, the…