In a negligence action, once the existence of a duty is established the second test is whether the defendant demonstrated sufficient care. But exactly how careful do we need to be to avoid liability? The reasonable person test is used by the court to establish standards of socially acceptable behaviour. In other words, the court asks "what would a reasonably prudent person have done in this situation?" It is important to note that the standard using a reasonable person test is NOT the same as what would be expected of an average person A reasonable person is expected to be prudent or particularly careful, demonstrating a level of behaviour that is considerably better than average. To avoid liability for negligence the standard of care is reasonableness rather than average. If you choose to participate in this forum, please answer the following questions. 1. In your opinion, what is the difference between a reasonable person and an average person? 2. What is an example of something a reasonable person would do differently than an average person, when it comes to being careful? You will need to make up a situation to provide an example