reasonably prudent person

noun

  • Personal Injury Law/Tort Law

Definitions of reasonably prudent person

  • an imaginary person used as a standard to decide if a person was negligent (=failed to act with care)

    The common formulation of a director's duty of care uses a "reasonably prudent man" standard similar to the one used in determining negligence.

Phrase Bank for reasonably prudent person

  • 3) the physical aspects of the warning must be adequate to alert a reasonably prudent person to the danger.

  • Self-dealings should be tempered with reasonable diligence to adhere to the business judgement rule: How would a reasonably prudent person act?

  • This requires a director to exercise the care, skill and diligence that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances.

  • This act constituted a “marked departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances,” which was enough to convict.

  • Deputies said in the arrest report that that statement “would cause a reasonably prudent person to believe she was happy with what he did.”.

  • The provision has been determined to require a defendant to act in the manner that a reasonably prudent person would.

Additional Notes for reasonably prudent person

  • Article: The reasonably prudent person

    The reasonably prudent person is a concept or standard in the law entailing a hypothetical person that acts in a manner society might expect of a normal, reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances. There is no technical and universally applied definition, and thus it varies between jurisdictions and contexts.

    The term is used most prevalently in the tort law context to assist the court or jury in determining whether someone has acted negligently. Specifically, if the court or jury finds that the person against whom a claim for negligence acted in a manner which is not how reasonably prudent person would have acted in the relevant situation, then the person is liable in damages for negligence. For example, the standard might be used by a court in deterring whether a driver in an auto accident case acted negligently in a hazardous traffic situation.

    However, the term may also be seen in criminal and contract law as well. In criminal law it primarily takes on the meaning as in tort law cases. However, in contract law it is primarily used to determine contractual intent. For example, if an alleged offer of contract is made, would a reasonable person conclude from the words used that an offer was actually made? If so, then there is an intent to contract by the party extending the offer.