Understanding the Reasonable Person Standard: Balancing Objectivity and Subjectivity in Law

In the realm of legal systems around the world, the concept of the “reasonable person standard” serves as a pivotal cornerstone for determining liability, negligence, and acceptable behavior in various legal scenarios. This widely used legal principle is founded upon the delicate balance between objectivity and subjectivity, seeking to establish a universal yardstick against which the actions and decisions of individuals can be measured.

Defining the Reasonable Person Standard

The reasonable person standard is a legal concept that defines the behavior expected of an ordinary, prudent, and rational individual in similar circumstances. This standard is used to assess whether an individual’s actions or decisions align with what a hypothetical reasonable person would do under the given circumstances. In other words, the question at hand is whether the individual’s conduct meets the benchmark of what an average, prudent person would consider appropriate in a specific situation.

The concept is not bound by the actual characteristics of any specific individual, but rather strives to establish a general societal norm of reasonable behavior. This norm considers factors such as the person’s knowledge, experience, and the information available to them at the time of the incident.

Objective vs. Subjective Elements

One of the challenges of applying the reasonable person standard lies in balancing the objective and subjective elements that contribute to individual decision-making. While the concept seeks to provide a fair and consistent framework for evaluation, it must also acknowledge the individual’s unique circumstances, perspectives, and limitations.

Objective Elements: The objective aspect of the standard involves assessing whether a person’s actions are in line with what a rational and prudent individual would do in the same situation. This part of the analysis focuses on established societal norms, widely accepted practices, and common sense. It disregards personal traits, emotions, and idiosyncrasies.

Subjective Elements: On the other hand, the reasonable person standard acknowledges that individuals have varying levels of knowledge, experience, and personal traits that influence their decision-making. It takes into account factors such as age, physical and mental condition, and even specific knowledge that might not be commonly held. This allows for a degree of flexibility in the application of the standard.

Application in Various Legal Contexts

The reasonable person standard finds its application in a variety of legal contexts:

  1. Negligence Cases: In cases involving negligence, the standard helps determine whether a person failed to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another party. If the defendant’s actions or omissions deviate from what a reasonable person would have done, they may be found liable for negligence.
  2. Criminal Law: The standard is also applied in criminal cases, particularly when evaluating whether a defendant’s actions meet the criteria for criminal intent. If a reasonable person would have foreseen that their actions could result in harm, it might establish the necessary intent for certain criminal charges.
  3. Torts and Personal Injury: In cases involving torts and personal injury claims, the reasonable person standard assists in assessing whether the defendant’s conduct directly caused harm due to their failure to adhere to a reasonable level of care.

Critiques and Evolving Standards

While the reasonable person standard provides a pragmatic approach to evaluating human behavior, it is not without criticism. Critics argue that it can sometimes be challenging to determine what truly constitutes “reasonable” behavior in complex, rapidly changing, or culturally diverse situations. Additionally, this standard might inadvertently favor majority perspectives and disregard marginalized or underrepresented viewpoints.

Over time, legal systems have evolved to incorporate considerations for specific contexts and individual characteristics. For instance, in cases involving professionals like doctors or engineers, a “reasonable professional” standard might be used, acknowledging the specialized knowledge and skills of those individuals.


The reasonable person standard is a fundamental concept in legal systems worldwide, serving as a tool to objectively assess human behavior and decision-making across a range of scenarios. It seeks to strike a balance between a universally acceptable benchmark and the nuances of individual circumstances. While it has its limitations, its adaptability and capacity to evolve ensure that it remains a crucial tool for achieving justice and fairness within the legal domain.

Video Transcript

What Is the Reasonable Person Standard?

You might have heard of this because whenever there are lawsuits, one of the legal tests that comes up is, ‘What would a reasonable person do in these circumstances?’ And have you ever noticed that you can talk to a bunch of people, and nobody agrees on what is reasonable? Especially when you talk about politics, whether it be President Donald Trump or President Joe Biden. Do people agree on whether their conduct was reasonable? No.

Determining Reasonableness in Different Contexts

So first off, who decides what is reasonable? That is a big question when going to a lawsuit. Well, it is the judge, unless there is a jury. And then usually, the jury will decide what a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances. But let’s face it, some reasonable people get drunk, act foolishly, are tired at times, have poor judgment, and make mistakes. Couldn’t you argue that under a reasonable person’s standard, ‘Hey, mistakes happen?’ The law says no.

The law says it is not just any old reasonable person. It is a prudent reasonable person or a reasonable person acting prudently. So, not a reasonable person who is making mistakes, who is tired, who is negligent, who is not thinking about things, but rather, a reasonable person who is prudent, intentional, thinking about what is happening, and doing the best they can, or at least doing what would seem like a proper way to handle something.

Application in Negligence Cases

That is the reasonable person test, and it comes up regularly in negligence cases because, in negligence, you have to show four things. First, a person had a duty not to do what they did. And that duty is based on a reasonable person. What would a reasonable person have done in that situation? Now, if the person is a doctor or a lawyer, and the question is whether they engaged in malpractice, then we don’t just ask about an average reasonable person. We ask about a reasonable doctor in that medical practice area in that jurisdiction. Or if it is a lawyer, we ask about a reasonable lawyer in that type of legal practice in that geographic area.

So let’s talk about if you have a jury trying to figure out what a lawyer should have done. How are they to know? This is how. The parties in the case bring in experts. These are attorneys who know what that answer should be, and they explain it to the jury. So the jury can decide what was reasonable, but they can do that based on the knowledge presented by the expert lawyer or the expert doctor speaking about what the standard would be in that particular profession.

The Criteria of Reasonableness

So what is the reasonable person standard? It is usually what a reasonably prudent person would do in like circumstances. And for a professional like a doctor, a lawyer, an accountant, or any other architect, or engineer, any other professional, it is what would that type of professional in the geographic area where they are located and in the field where they practice, what would that professional do in similar circumstances? If the person in the lawsuit, the defendant, did not act as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances, then they are typically going to be liable for any damages that occurred. Essentially, they had a duty to act reasonably. They breached that duty, and then whatever damages they caused because of that breach, they will be liable.


All right. If you haven’t already subscribed at aaronhall.com/free, you are welcome to check out our channel where we have all sorts of other questions from business owners and the answers provided to you. I do these videos as a public service, as a way to use my knowledge as a licensed attorney to help business owners avoid problems, spot issues to discuss with their attorneys, and improve the likelihood that you will have a successful company and successful life. It is great being here with you today.