In cases of negligence, what determines if the defendant acted as a reasonable person would?

In negligence cases, whether the defendant acted as a reasonable person would is typically determined by the jury's assessment of the circumstances surrounding the incident. The standard of a "reasonable person" is a legal benchmark used to evaluate how an average person with similar knowledge, experience, and circumstances would have acted in the same situation. The jury is tasked with weighing evidence, including testimonies and the specifics of the case, to ascertain if the defendant's actions fell short of this standard.

This determination is critical because it establishes whether the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The concept of negligence inherently revolves around societal expectations of behavior, and it is the jury, as representatives of that society, who interpret what those expectations are in a given case.

Other options, while potentially relevant in some contexts, do not directly establish the reasonable person standard in negligence cases. The judge provides legal oversight and may guide the jury on the law but does not determine reasonableness on their own. Expert testimony can support the jury's understanding of specific standards in professional contexts but does not dictate the jury's ultimate decision on reasonableness. Finally, the defendant's intent is not the focus in negligence cases, as negligence is about the failure to act reasonably rather than malicious