Also known as: reasonable person standard of care · prudent person standard of care · reasonably prudent person · reasonable person test · objective standard of care
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The objective measure of conduct required to avoid negligence liability. It requires an actor to behave as a person of ordinary prudence would under the same or similar circumstances.
Officer Ramirez sees a man matching a robbery description exit a store carrying a bag and ignore repeated stop commands while heading toward an alley. The officer pursues and tackles the man, causing injury. The man sues for negligence. The jury measures the officer's conduct against the care a reasonably prudent person would exercise under the same circumstances.
Pitcher Ralph Richardson warms up by throwing a baseball toward the stands rather than his catcher during a game at Fenway Park. The ball strikes spectator Rosa Ruiz, who is sitting in the bleachers and suffers injury. Ruiz sues for negligence. The jury measures Richardson's throw against the care a reasonably prudent pitcher would exercise under the same game conditions.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
No. The standard remains objective. An adult defendant's mental deficiency does not relieve liability for conduct that falls short of what a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances.
Supporting sources
Once a person takes charge of a helpless individual, the standard requires that person to exercise the care a reasonably prudent person would use in providing aid and securing safety. Failure to do so can result in liability for additional harm caused.
Supporting sources
The standard is objective. It measures conduct against what a reasonably prudent person would do, not against the defendant's own abilities or judgment.
Supporting sources
…the time in question failed to exercise ordinary care or due care. The words “ordinary care” or “due care” mean the care that a reasonably prudent person would use under circumstances similar to those shown to have existed by the evidence in this case. The law doesn’t say how a reasonably careful or prudent person would act under those…