Which approach compares a defendant's conduct with that of a reasonably prudent person?

The correct answer is the traditional approach, which is grounded in the concept of comparing the defendant's conduct to that of a reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances. This standard of care is designed to establish whether the defendant acted with the appropriate degree of caution expected of an average person, and it serves as a benchmark for determining negligence.

In the context of tort law, this approach focuses on the actions of an individual and weighs them against what a reasonable person would have done to prevent harm. It emphasizes the importance of societal norms and expectations regarding safe conduct, making it a cornerstone of negligence claims. If a defendant's behavior falls below this standard, they may be found liable for any resulting damages.

While modern trends and other methods may incorporate elements such as cost considerations or comparative fault, they do not specifically define the standard of care solely based on a comparison with a reasonably prudent person. Hence, the traditional approach remains the foundational framework for assessing negligence in tort law.