If you have been injured in an accident, you must prove your case against the standard for a reasonable person. Our Las Vegas attorneys can represent you and handle all aspects of your accidental claim. When we represent you, Adam S. Kutner Accident & Injury Attorneys` personal injury attorneys take care of every step of the way in building your case. We can help you assess the case against the standard for a reasonable person, gather the evidence in your case, and fight for the compensation you deserve. Reasonably can be described as “in a reasonable manner”. But this only works if it is reasonably used with a verb. When it is reasonably used other than with a verb, writers can lose sight of what they are trying to say. In order to prove negligence in a personal injury claim, there must be some sort of legal standard for negligent conduct. The facts of each accident case are different from the others, making it difficult for the courts to determine whether the negligence occurred in a particular situation. In Nevada and most jurisdictions, the definition of negligence is based on the reasonable person standard. In determining whether there has been negligence, the jury considers what a reasonable person would do in the same situation. The implementation of such measures requires that the reasonable person be reasonably informed, capable, lawful and fair.
Such a person can do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but whatever they do or think, it is always reasonable. The reasonable person has been described as an “excellent but abominable character”.  A limitation imposed by the courts on the objective standard has already been mentioned: the skilled person or expert, who is required to meet the standard of a reasonable professional or expert rather than a reasonable average person. On the other hand, there is an unexpected mechanical failure that caused the brakes to fail, even the control of the most reasonable person. If that was the reason the driver ran a red light, the jury would most likely say that the driver acted reasonably and was not responsible. Therefore, the standard is objective – the precise knowledge of the accused does not matter. The only thing that matters is what a reasonable person should have known, what would have been reasonable in that situation, and what steps the defendant took. To prove the standard of a reasonably prudent person, you must do two things: first, you must prove what the other party`s actions were. You must present evidence to show what the other party has done. Second, you must argue before the jury that these actions are below the standard of a reasonable person. You prove your case with a mixture of factual evidence about the events of the situation and legal arguments about how those facts apply to the person`s reasonable standard.
In 1835, Adolphe Quetelet described the characteristics of the average man (French, “average man”). His work has been translated into English in various ways. As a result, some authors choose “average man”, “ordinary man”, “reasonable man” or stick to the original “average man”. Quetelet was a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician and sociologist. He documented the physical characteristics of humans on a statistical basis and discussed the motivations of humans to act in society.  However, controversial medical practices may be considered reasonable if they are followed by a respected minority of the medical profession, or if the medical profession cannot agree on best practices.  In applying the reasonable person standard, courts instead use an objective instrument and avoid such subjective assessments. The result is a standard that allows the law to behave in a uniform, predictable and neutral manner when it comes to determining liability. The reasonable standard of the person is by no means democratic in its scope; Contrary to popular belief, it is intentionally different from that of the “average person,” which is not necessarily guaranteed to always be reasonable.  A reasonable person will weigh all of the following factors before acting: The reasonable person test is an objective standard.
The purpose of the reasonable person test is to provide the jury with a concrete and consistent standard when considering the actions of each party in a case.