Also known as: reasonable person · reasonable man standard · reasonable man · objective standard · reasonable man test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An objective standard of conduct that measures a person's actions against what a hypothetical reasonable person would do under like circumstances. It requires conformity to the care a reasonable person would exercise, without regard to the actor's individual subjective characteristics unless the doctrine specifically adjusts for them.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Roberto Reyes drove his truck at high speed through a residential neighborhood while texting. He struck and killed a pedestrian who was crossing at a marked crosswalk. Prosecutors charged Reyes with involuntary manslaughter on the theory that his conduct grossly deviated from the care a reasonable driver would have exercised.
Riley Rivera told a colleague that she had falsified inventory records at work. The statement exposed Rivera to potential civil liability from her employer. At trial the colleague offered the statement under the hearsay exception for declarations against interest because a reasonable person in Rivera's position would have made it only if she believed it true.
Rosa Ruiz left a loaded handgun on her kitchen table while hosting a neighborhood gathering. A guest's child found the gun and accidentally shot himself. Ruiz faced criminal-negligence charges because she should have been aware of the substantial risk and her failure to perceive it constituted a gross deviation from the care a reasonable person would have exercised.
Judge Raphael Rivera agreed to serve as an unpaid advisor to a political advocacy group that frequently appeared before his court. Court staff warned that the role could create an appearance of partiality. The judicial conduct commission investigated whether the activity would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge's impartiality.
Ravi Reddy sold a used car to Raven Logistics and stated that the vehicle had never been in an accident. Reddy knew the car had sustained major frame damage. The buyer later discovered the misrepresentation and sued, claiming the statement would have induced a reasonable person to purchase the vehicle.
Redline Automotive owned an apartment building whose hallway lighting had been broken for weeks. Tenant Robert Rivera tripped on the darkened stairs and broke his leg. Rivera sued for negligence, alleging that Redline failed to maintain the premises in the manner a reasonable landlord would have done under the same circumstances.
The reasonable person standard is objective and measures conduct against a hypothetical reasonable person rather than the defendant's own beliefs or abilities. A subjective standard would ask what the particular defendant actually knew or intended. Courts apply the objective version in negligence and most criminal-negligence contexts unless a specific doctrine adjusts for the actor's situation.
Supporting sources
…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…
…or sanctioned. In criminal cases, this approach is exemplified by the refusal of courts to enforce vague statutes that no reasonable person
…obligation under this warranty being limited to making good at its factory any part or parts thereof” signifies to an ordinary reasonable person
…complains of the ineffectiveness of counsel's assistance, the defendant must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of
…the common-law formula was generally applied with rather strict objectivity. Only provocations that might cause the hypothetical reasonable man to lose control could be considered. And even provocations of that sort were inadequate to reduce the crime to manslaughter if enough time had passed for the
The standard generally does not adjust for mental limitations or ordinary physical traits. It does adjust for a child's age and experience and for physical disabilities that affect perception. A defendant with a sudden unforeseeable mental illness is still held to the objective standard in most jurisdictions.
Supporting sources
Under the statement-against-interest exception, a court asks whether a reasonable person in the declarant's position would have made the statement only if the declarant believed it true. The test focuses on the statement's tendency to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability at the time it was made.
Supporting sources
A judge must avoid extrajudicial activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge's independence, integrity, or impartiality. The test is objective and does not require proof that the judge actually lost impartiality.
Supporting sources
A misrepresentation is material if it would be likely to induce a reasonable person to manifest assent. The test is objective and focuses on the probable effect of the statement on a person in the recipient's position.
Supporting sources
Both use an objective measure, but criminal negligence requires a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe. Civil negligence requires only a failure to exercise ordinary care. The higher threshold in criminal cases reflects the greater culpability needed for criminal liability.
Supporting sources