In determining whether a duty of care has been breached, courts ask how a "reasonable person" would have acted in the same circumstances. In negligence cases, the degree of care to exercise varies, depending on the defendant's occupation, his or her relationship with the plaintiff, and the particular circumstances of the case. Thus, for example, an accountant is required to have a minimum level of special knowledge and ability. What constitutes an accountant's "unreasonable" conduct is determined, not by the "reasonable person" standard, but by the "reasonable accountant" standard

Is this statement true or false?