How the standard of care is measured in Georgia tort cases: what a reasonable person would do

Reasonable Care in Georgia Torts: The Standard Everyone Relies On

If you’ve ever watched a spill in a grocery store or seen a doctor pause before a procedure, you’ve encountered a quiet, everyday idea that sits at the heart of tort law: the standard of care. In Georgia, as in many places, this isn’t about flawless performance or heroics. It’s about what a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances. It’s a practical yardstick that courts use to decide whether someone’s actions were negligent.

Let’s set the baseline: the reasonable person standard

Here’s the thing: the law doesn’t expect perfection. It expects reasonable prudence. The standard asks a simple, human question: would an average, reasonable person have acted the same way given the same facts and setting? If yes, the person’s actions are typically seen as non-negligent. If no, there’s a good chance negligence occurred.

This “reasonable person” is not a real person you’d meet in everyday life. It’s a hypothetical benchmark that reflects ordinary judgment in ordinary situations. The goal is consistency. The law wants to know whether a defendant’s conduct fell short of what society expects as prudent and safe behavior.

What the standard is not

To avoid confusion, it helps to contrast the reasonable person standard with other possible yardsticks—and Georgia isn’t shy about drawing those lines clear.

• It’s not the best effort. You don’t have to go “above and beyond” or execute a flawless performance. The question is whether the conduct was what a reasonable person would have done, not whether it was perfect.

• It’s not the most stringent industry standard. Going by the toughest rule in a field would set an unrealistically high bar for everyday life. The standard looks at what reasonable people would do in common scenarios, given ordinary risks.

• It’s not a comparison to other professionals. While expert testimony often helps explain professional standards, the baseline for most torts remains the behavior of an average, reasonable person. When professionals are involved, sometimes the standard shifts (more on that below), but the general principle still informs the judgment.

Context matters: why circumstances matter

One of the reasons the reasonable person standard works so well is that it’s flexible. It doesn’t pretend all situations are identical. It asks you to weigh context: what risks were present, what duties existed, and what a typical person would know at that moment.

• Urgency and emergencies. If danger arises suddenly, the reasonable response might be different from a normal, planned action. An abrupt choice under pressure can still be reasonable if it’s what a prudent person would do when faced with a sudden risk.

• Knowledge and experience. A reasonable person with more information or training might be held to a higher standard, while someone lacking that background isn’t expected to act with the same expertise.

• Physical limitations. Disability, age, or temporary impairment can adjust what is considered reasonable. The standard asks what a person with similar constraints would do in the same situation.

• Environment and setting. A wet floor in a supermarket calls for different precautions than a dry office hallway. The surrounding circumstances color what’s deemed reasonable.

Professional standards: when expertise changes the equation

When the stakes involve professional skills—medicine, law, engineering, or similar fields—the standard sometimes shifts from the general public to a professional standard of care. In those contexts, a defendant isn’t judged by what any reasonable person would do, but by what a reasonably competent professional in that field would have done under similar circumstances.

Key point: experts often help the court define that standard. They compare the defendant’s actions to the norms of a competent practitioner with similar training and resources. If the professional’s conduct falls short of those norms, negligence can be found even if a layperson’s standard might have allowed more leeway.

Georgia context: how the state applies the standard

Georgia follows the classic notion of reasonable care, with a few nuances that reflect its own legal tradition. In many everyday torts—slip-and-fall, car accidents, property duties—the question stays anchored in the reasonable person standard under the surrounding facts. For professional cases, the professional-standard approach kicks in, and expert testimony helps translate “what a reasonable professional would do” into concrete expectations.

Georgia also recognizes that people aren’t interchangeable. Children, for example, aren’t judged by the same standard as adults. Generally, the standard for a child mirrors what a reasonable child of similar age, intelligence, and experience would do. When a child engages in an adult activity, many courts apply an adult standard for that activity, acknowledging the different risks and duties involved.

It’s also worth noting that some cases hinge on statutory rules as a form of negligence per se. If a defendant violates a statute designed to protect a specific class of people, that violation can establish fault per se, unless the defendant’s conduct is excused by a reasonable justification or a defense.

Real-world scenarios that shape the standard

• A store owner spots a spill and delays cleaning. A reasonable owner would take steps to reduce risk—put up a warning, cordon off the area, or clean it promptly. If those steps are neglected, and someone slips, negligence is plausible.

• A doctor makes a diagnostic call. Here, the standard typically becomes professional: what would a reasonably competent doctor in the same field do with the same information? If the decision falls outside those professional norms, the patient may have a case for negligence, often requiring expert testimony to explain the standard within the medical field.

• A pedestrian with a disability crosses a poorly lit road. The question turns on what a reasonable person with similar mobility challenges would do in that setting, and what a reasonable driver should have anticipated in terms of pedestrian risk.

• A child participates in a neighborhood game where a ball causes damage. The standard for the child reflects what a reasonable child of that age would do, and the activity’s inherent risk is factored into the assessment.

Balancing fairness with practicality

The reasonable person standard is a balancing act. It’s meant to be fair—acknowledging that people make mistakes, that life is imperfect, and that some risk is inevitable. At the same time, it’s practical: it gives courts a clear, consistent benchmark to compare actual conduct against what a typical person would do.

That balance is important. If the bar were set too low, everyday care would vanish. If it were set too high, people would be punished for inadvertent misjudgments in ordinary life. The standard seeks to strike a middle path—demanding sensible caution without demanding perfection.

How this plays into risk and responsibility

A lot of tort law is about risk management in daily life. The reasonable person standard translates risk into responsibility: what duty did the defendant owe, and did they meet it? If they didn’t, they may be liable for the harms that followed. If they did, even bad outcomes sometimes happen without fault.

It’s also a reminder that outcomes aren’t the whole story. Two people can have equally unfortunate results, but only one may be negligent if their conduct wasn’t what a reasonable person would do under those circumstances. The presence or absence of negligence shapes who pays for damages, how settlements are viewed, and what stories get told in court or in the insurance world.

A few practical takeaways

• When evaluating a potential claim, identify the key facts: what was known, what risks were present, and what a reasonable person would have done in that moment.

• If professionals are involved, look for expert testimony that defines the professional standard in that field. The court often relies on specialists to translate technical expectations into a legal standard.

• Don’t lose sight of the setting. A behavior that’s perfectly reasonable in one context might be negligent in another if the duties and dangers differ.

• Remember the child standard. If a minor is involved, consider what a reasonable child of similar age and experience would do, unless the activity is one typically undertaken by adults.

A closing thought

At the end of the day, the standard of care isn’t about a checklist of perfect moves. It’s about reasonable judgment in the face of real-world risk. It’s about recognizing that people operate under varying pressures, with different knowledge, and in diverse environments. The law asks for a sensible, human gauge, not an unreachable ideal.

If you’re brushing up on Georgia tort law, keep this mental model in your back pocket: what would a reasonable person do under the same circumstances? Use that question as your compass, and you’ll navigate the core idea with clarity and confidence. And as you move from one fact pattern to the next, let the context guide you—because the best answer often lies in weighing the risk, the duty, and the ordinary judgment we all expect of each other.