Question about reasonable person Forum

[BackToTheOldHouse]

It's the same standard of a "reasonable person in similar circumstances." The practical difference is that whereas in, for example, a negligence case about injuries from a car accident, the jury will rely on their own personal experience and knowledge of how reasonable drivers behave, in the case of medical malpractice the jury will rely on the testimony of other doctors as expert witnesses regarding what the appropriate standard of care delivered by a reasonable doctor is.

HTH.

Your 'practical difference' is a distinction.

Yes, in practice there is a distinction, which is what I said. The concept is the same though. The only difference is that when the question is one of professional responsibility the "reasonable person in similar circumstances" is equated with the customary standard of care in that profession. As opposed to the jury getting to just use their own intuition about what is reasonable. This is not complicated.

tee hee hee

[Emma.]

It's the same standard of a "reasonable person in similar circumstances." The practical difference is that whereas in, for example, a negligence case about injuries from a car accident, the jury will rely on their own personal experience and knowledge of how reasonable drivers behave, in the case of medical malpractice the jury will rely on the testimony of other doctors as expert witnesses regarding what the appropriate standard of care delivered by a reasonable doctor is.

HTH.

Your 'practical difference' is a distinction.

Yes, in practice there is a distinction, which is what I said. The concept is the same though. The only difference is that when the question is one of professional responsibility the "reasonable person in similar circumstances" is equated with the customary standard of care in that profession. As opposed to the jury getting to just use their own intuition about what is reasonable. This is not complicated.

[thrillerjesus]

It's the same standard of a "reasonable person in similar circumstances." The practical difference is that whereas in, for example, a negligence case about injuries from a car accident, the jury will rely on their own personal experience and knowledge of how reasonable drivers behave, in the case of medical malpractice the jury will rely on the testimony of other doctors as expert witnesses regarding what the appropriate standard of care delivered by a reasonable doctor is.

HTH.

Your 'practical difference' is a distinction.

Yes, in practice there is a distinction, which is what I said. The concept is the same though. The only difference is that when the question is one of professional responsibility the "reasonable person in similar circumstances" is equated with the customary standard of care in that profession. As opposed to the jury getting to just use their own intuition about what is reasonable. This is not complicated.

What a delightfully mature young lady you must be.

[Emma.]

What a delightfully mature young lady you must be.

This post is awesome on so many levels.