A moderately prudent person is someone who utilizes excellent judgment or common sense while dealing with practical issues. In deciding whether an individual's actions were reasonable, the acts of a person exercising common sense in a comparable scenario serve as a guidance. Common sense tells us that if most people acted according to reason alone, there would be very few murders, robberies, or other violent crimes committed.
Using common sense, we can conclude that because most people do not murder others, then a reasonable interpretation of this data is that everyone has something inside them that prevents them from killing.
Another example that uses common sense is when trying to decide what action to take during an emergency. If you were a reasonably prudent person, you would follow these steps: first, understand what direction the danger is coming from; second, determine how far it is; third, decide what action should be taken; fourth, carry out that action without delay.
For example, if you heard a noise in your house at night, you would want to know what it was before taking any action. You would use your ears to listen for more information about the source of the sound. If it sounded like a burglar, you might call the police. But if it was just a pet or a neighbor, you wouldn't need to involve law enforcement officers.
A reasonable or wise man is a fictitious individual who is employed as a legal benchmark, particularly to establish if someone acted negligently. This hypothetical individual acts with the care, skill, and judgment that society expects of its members in order to defend their own and others' interests. In law, he is usually called a "prudent man".
In general usage, an "ordinary" person is one who is not a public official or other person acting under the authority of the government. It may also refer to any non-famous person. In the context of negligence cases, it often refers to a person like you or me, who is not a professional in any way.
An "ostensible" principal is a type of defendant in a negligence case. If you are injured by someone else's negligence but that person was acting only on behalf of some other, more responsible party, then that other party is the ostensible principal. For example, if a shopkeeper leaves a knife on the counter and someone gets hurt using it, the owner of the knife isn't liable unless he knew the knife was dangerous and didn't warn anyone about it. But if the shopkeeper is actually working for another company that sells knives, they're the ones who would be held liable if someone was hurt with the knife.
In conclusion, an "ordinary" person is a non-professional person like you or me.
This hypothetical individual, known as the reasonable or sensible man, acts with the care, skill, and judgment that society expects of its members in order to defend their own and others' interests. This serves as a benchmark for evaluating responsibility. For example, if this man fails to use due care in selecting a partner or a job, he can be held legally responsible for any damages or losses that result.
The reasonable or prudent man theory is one of several theories used by courts to determine liability for negligence. It is usually applied in cases where there is no specific legal duty assigned to a particular person or entity. For example, when entering a school playground, each child has an obligation to exercise reasonable care not to injure others while on the property. However many children may have the right to use the playground without being liable for any injuries that may result; therefore, the school district would not be held liable for any damage caused by young people playing on the equipment.
In other words, under the reasonable or prudent man theory, people are expected to use reasonable care to protect themselves from injury. If they fail to do so, they can be found liable for any damages or losses that result.
A "reasonable person" is a hypothetical human who approaches each circumstance with proper caution and then acts rationally. It is a criterion designed to give judges and juries with an objective criteria for determining whether a person's acts are negligent.
In law, negligence is the failure to do what a reasonably prudent person would do under similar circumstances. The determination of what conduct is required of a plaintiff depends on the particular facts of the case. What constitutes reasonable care varies depending on the situation involved. For example, when driving a car, it is required of you to drive with reasonable care under the circumstances; however, if you were texting while driving, that would be unacceptable behavior even if the road was empty of all other traffic. Reasonable care also varies with age: children need more protection from dangerous forces than adults. In addition, men should not have to be given the same standard of care as women (since they cannot perform certain actions as safely). Finally, there are many situations where the only way to avoid danger is by risking your life - for example, jumping off a building or bridge to escape from approaching cars.
In civil cases, the jury is usually instructed that they must decide how much care a "reasonable person" would exercise in the same or similar circumstances. If the jury finds that the plaintiff's own actions contributed to his or her injuries, he or she cannot recover damages.