Who determines whether a person acted as a reasonably prudent person?

The determination of whether a person acted as a reasonably prudent person is fundamentally a question of fact that is typically reserved for the jury. This standard is based on the actions of a hypothetical "reasonable person" in similar circumstances, reflecting what society generally considers to be appropriate behavior.

In tort law, the reasonable person standard is employed to assess negligence, and the jury will evaluate the evidence presented to them, including the circumstances surrounding the case, to decide if the defendant's actions were consistent with those of a reasonably prudent person under similar conditions.

This process enables the jury to incorporate societal norms and expectations into their analysis, as they are tasked with interpreting evidence and applying those standards to the defendant's conduct. This ensures that the determination of negligence is grounded in the community's standards of behavior, rather than being solely dependent on subjective views or jurors’ opinions.

In contrast, relying on the defendant's personal experience, the judge's interpretation of legal precedent, or the victim's perception would not offer a comprehensive standard for determining reasonable behavior in tort cases. These alternatives do not capture the objective nature of the reasonable person standard that the jury is meant to apply.