Learning Outcomes
After reading this article, you will be able to explain the objective standard of the reasonably prudent person in negligence law, identify how this standard is applied to adults, children, and professionals, and recognize key exceptions and exam pitfalls. You will be equipped to apply these principles to MBE-style questions and distinguish between ordinary and special standards of care.
MBE Syllabus
For MBE, you are required to understand the standard of care in negligence, especially the role of the reasonably prudent person. This article addresses:
- The objective standard of the reasonably prudent person in negligence.
- How the standard applies to adults, children, and professionals.
- Exceptions and modifications to the standard.
- Application to exam scenarios and common traps.
Test Your Knowledge
Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.
-
Which of the following best describes the standard of care for an adult defendant in a negligence case?
- The care a perfect person would use.
- The care a reasonable person with the defendant’s actual abilities would use.
- The care a reasonably prudent person would use under similar circumstances.
- The care the defendant personally believes is appropriate.
-
A 10-year-old child injures someone while riding a bicycle. What standard of care applies?
- The reasonably prudent adult standard.
- The standard of a child of similar age, experience, and intelligence.
- Strict liability.
- The standard of a professional cyclist.
-
Which of the following is NOT a recognized exception to the reasonably prudent person standard?
- Physical disability.
- Mental illness.
- Emergency situations.
- Superior skill or knowledge.
Introduction
Negligence law uses the concept of the reasonably prudent person to set the standard of care. This standard is objective: it asks what a hypothetical reasonable person would do in the defendant’s situation, not what the defendant personally thought was reasonable. The standard applies broadly, but there are important exceptions and modifications for certain categories of defendants.
Key Term: Reasonably Prudent Person The hypothetical person who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct, serving as the legal standard for negligence.
The Objective Standard
The default rule is that every adult is held to the standard of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances. This standard does not account for a defendant’s actual mental abilities, experience, or personal beliefs. Instead, it is an external, community-based measure.
Key Term: Objective Standard A legal test that judges conduct by what a reasonable person would do, not by the defendant’s subjective intentions or beliefs.
Modifications for Physical Characteristics
If a defendant has a physical disability, the standard is adjusted: the defendant is compared to a reasonably prudent person with the same disability. For example, a blind person is judged by what a reasonable blind person would do.
Key Term: Physical Disability Standard The standard of care applied to a defendant with a physical disability, comparing them to a reasonable person with that same disability.
Children
Children are generally held to the standard of a child of similar age, experience, and intelligence. However, if a child is engaged in an adult activity (such as driving a car), the adult standard applies.
Key Term: Child Standard The standard of care for children, based on what a reasonable child of similar age, experience, and intelligence would do.
Professionals and Special Skills
Professionals (such as doctors or lawyers) are held to the standard of a reasonable member of their profession with similar training and experience. If a person has special skills or knowledge, and those skills are relevant, the standard incorporates that higher ability.
Key Term: Professional Standard The standard of care for professionals, based on the customary practice of a reasonable professional in that field.
Emergencies
If a defendant is confronted with a sudden emergency not of their own making, the standard is what a reasonably prudent person would do in that emergency.
Mental Characteristics
Mental illness or lack of intelligence does not lower the standard. Defendants are still judged by the reasonably prudent person, not by their own mental limitations.
Worked Example 1.1
A driver with average abilities is distracted and runs a red light, causing an accident. What standard of care applies?
Answer: The driver is held to the standard of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances. The fact that the driver was distracted or inexperienced is irrelevant; the law asks what a reasonable person would have done.
Worked Example 1.2
A 12-year-old child injures a pedestrian while riding a bicycle. How is negligence determined?
Answer: The child is compared to a reasonable child of similar age, experience, and intelligence. If the child was riding a standard bicycle, the child standard applies. If the child was driving a car, the adult standard would apply.
Exam Warning
On the MBE, do not apply a subjective standard based on the defendant’s actual mental state or inexperience. The standard is objective except for physical disabilities and children.
Revision Tip
Remember: Only physical disabilities and childhood status modify the standard. Mental illness, inexperience, or voluntary intoxication do not.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- The reasonably prudent person standard is objective and external.
- Adults are judged by the reasonably prudent person standard, regardless of personal traits.
- Physical disabilities modify the standard; mental disabilities do not.
- Children are judged by the standard of a child of similar age, experience, and intelligence.
- Professionals are held to the standard of a reasonable professional in their field.
- Emergencies are considered, but the standard remains objective.
- The standard is not lowered for inexperience or mental illness.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Reasonably Prudent Person
- Objective Standard
- Physical Disability Standard
- Child Standard
- Professional Standard
