Subject: Law of Torts (Breach of Duty)

Once a duty of care has been found, it is then necessary to ask whether the defendant has acted in such a way as to have breached that duty of care. The key thing to ascertain is the standard expected of the defendant and then to examine the actions of the defendant to see whether they have fallen short of this standard.

The "reasonable person" standard is an objective test in personal injury cases that courts use to determine if a defendant acted as other people would have in the same situation.

He is the alter ego of a judge in that situation, what would he do in that situation?

Thus, it is important the judge must be familiar with ongoings in a society.

For example, let's say one person is involvedin a car accident. He wasrear-ended by another car while stopped in traffic. The negligence elements are:

1. The defendant must have owed you a duty of care.

2. That duty of care must have been breached.

3. That breach must have caused injuries.

4. Those injuries must have resulted in damages.

All of these elements have been satisfied in the above scenario.

When the judge reviews the facts, they will compare it to the "reasonable person" standard. He will determine how a typical person would have acted in the same scenario under the same circumstances.

Would a reasonable person have reacted in the same fashion?

What would thejudgehave done under those circumstances?

Would hehave reacted the same way the defendant did?

Would hehave rear-ended his car?

This is technically an objective standard, not a subjective one, so it doesn't take into account any specific aspects of the defendant and means everyone is held to the same level. The judgewill consider the defendant's conduct in light of what he knows and has experienced. However, it is meant to be a broad representation of the community at large.