Reasonable Person Standard's Case Impact

After being injured by another person’s negligence, you will probably hearing a lot of legal terms. Some terms you may know, and others you may find confusing. One of the legal terms often used in personal injury cases is “the reasonable person standard.” This term refers to a legal benchmark used to compare a defendant’s actions against a hypothetical, but sensible person in similar circumstances. The answer to that question can impact the success of your claim and whether you are able to recover full compensation for your damages.

Do you need legal help after suffering a personal injury due to another’s negligence? If so, we encourage you to seek legal counsel from a knowledgeable attorney to discuss your situation and determine whether you may have valid legal case.

At Schmidt Kramer, our Harrisburg personal injury attorneys have recovered millions in compensation for our clients. We know how to deal with insurance companies and to build a compelling case to ensure you recover full and fair compensation. Call our law offices today to discuss your legal options. If we represent you, our firm charges no upfront costs to engage our legal services.

Call 717-727-2500 to schedule your free case review.

Understanding the Reasonable Person Standard in Pennsylvania Law

Someone who is injured signing paperwork.

The reasonable person standard asks, “Would a typical person with this level of responsibility have acted differently under the same circumstances?” This standard is based on typical, reasonable community behavior, not perfection.

While this question does not address every aspect of a potential case, it helps determine whether someone exercised ordinary care and followed basic safety practices. It also considers whether they assessed potential risks before acting.

How Pennsylvania Laws Measure “Reasonable” Behavior

Pennsylvania courts use specific frameworks to determine “reasonable” behavior in injury cases and do not define reasonableness with a simple checklist. Instead, courts consider these factors:

What would an average person have done in this situation?
What risks would have been foreseeable to a typical person?
What preventative measures would have been practical to implement?
What relevant laws, regulations or industry standards apply?
What community customs or practices exist regarding this activity?

How Does the Reasonable Person Standard Impact Compensation?

This measurement process directly affects whether you can recover compensation after an accident in Harrisburg. Unlike some states, Pennsylvania considers these factors under its modified comparative negligence system. This means the victim’s and the at-fault party’s reasonableness are evaluated.

How Courts Apply the Reasonable Person Test to Prove Negligence

When you are injured in a personal injury case, you need to successfully prove negligence, which requires demonstrating how the defendant’s actions failed to meet the reasonable person standard. Pennsylvania courts follow a specific process to apply this standard in determining fault.

Duty of Care: Under the law, the defendant owed you a legal duty to act reasonably
Breach of Duty: Their conduct fell below what a reasonable person would do
Causation: This unreasonable behavior led to the accident that directly caused your injury
Damages: You suffered damages, including medical costs and other losses, requiring compensation

When Does the Reasonable Person Standard Apply in Different Scenarios?

The reasonable person standard is not applied uniformly across all situations in Harrisburg injury cases. Understanding how Pennsylvania courts adapt this standard to different scenarios can significantly impact your case’s outcome.

Below are some examples of how the reasonable person standard applies to different types of personal injury cases:

Auto Accidents

In vehicle collision cases, courts apply the reasonable person standard by asking, “Would a reasonable driver have maintained a safe following distance on a highway?” Sideswipe crashes may lead the insurance company or courts to question whether a reasonable person would have checked their blind spot before changing lanes.

Pennsylvania’s comparative negligence rules mean that both drivers’ actions are measured against what reasonable drivers would have done in similar circumstances. Local factors like traffic patterns and construction zones often influence “reasonable” driving behavior.

Premises Liability

When you are injured on someone else’s property, the reasonable person standard applies differently depending on the property type. For example, a residential property may not be held to the same standard as a commercial property where people shop.

Below are the responsibilities of different individuals affected by the reasonable person standard in premises liability cases:

Commercial Property Owners: Private and commercial property owners are required to regularly inspect for hazards and fix dangerous conditions.
Tenants: Should warn property owners about known dangers but are not required to conduct regular inspections.
Trespassers: Even when people enter a property without permission, property owners may still have a duty to prevent willful or wanton harm, especially if the trespasser is a child.

Medical Malpractice

Medical malpractice cases may require expert testimony from professionals familiar with accepted practices in the medical community or similar healthcare environments.

In medical cases, the reasonable person standard answers questions like:

Would a reasonable doctor have ordered that diagnostic test?
Would a reasonable surgeon have disclosed those specific risks?
Would a reasonable nurse have monitored vital signs more frequently?
Would a reasonable pharmacist have flagged that medication interaction?

Product Liability

Defective products could leave victims with injuries such as burns or fractures. If a product injures multiple people or lacks warnings and instructions, key questions can determine if the manufacturer or company is liable.

Some of the following questions could be used to establish who is liable:

Design defects: Would a reasonable manufacturer have designed the product differently?
Manufacturing defects: Would reasonable quality control have caught the problem?
Warning defects: Would a reasonable manufacturer have provided more explicit warnings?

Workplace Injuries

Workplace accidents in government or factory settings are assessed under the reasonable person standard, workers’ compensation and OSHA rules. Workers’ compensation is a system that generally operates without fault determinations. Employees do not need to prove employer negligence to receive benefits. The primary requirement is that the injury occurred while performing job duties.

These claims can involve the reasonable person standard to determine negligence. For example, suppose a worker is injured due to faulty equipment. In that case, they might file a third-party claim against the equipment manufacturer, where the reasonable person standard would be used to assess the manufacturer’s liability.

Recreational Activities and Sporting Events

Individuals who participate in sports through a community league generally assume some risk of injury. This legal principle acknowledges that injuries are inherent in many recreational activities.

The reasonable person standard shifts to what is reasonable within the context of the activity. For example, what is considered reasonable behavior in a contact sport like football differs from non-contact sports like tennis.

Even within the context of sports, reckless or intentional conduct that goes beyond the accepted risks of the activity is not protected. Participants can be held liable for actions that are excessively dangerous or intended to cause harm.

Different standards for participants and spectators:

Participants: The standard for participants focuses on the inherent risks of the activity and what a reasonable participant would do under similar circumstances
Spectators: Spectators are generally owed a higher duty of care. They do not assume the same risks as participants and property owners or event organizers.

The Reasonable Person Standard Unique Cases

In some cases, the reasonable person standard could change if the following individuals are involved:

Children: If children are involved in a case, the reasonable person standard will consider their age, cognitive development and their ability to understand risks.
People with Disabilities: The standard becomes a “reasonable person with similar physical limitations”. Courts may consider the severity of an individual’s disability and the context of the situation.
Professionals: The standard may assess the training and experience of professionals like engineers or truck drivers. It will also examine industry standards and best practices.

Tactics for Fighting the Reasonable Person Standard

Insurance companies or the opposing parties may have various strategies to challenge claims based on the reasonable person standard. These tactics are designed to minimize liability and reduce payouts.

Arguing for Industry-specific Standards: Insurance companies often claim that general reasonable person standards do not apply, advocating for narrower industry-specific or situational standards that may favor their position.
Bringing in Specialized Experts: The opposing side may hire technical experts to testify that the insured’s actions were reasonable within professional or technical contexts, potentially establishing a more lenient standard.
Redefining “Reasonable”: Insurers attempt to shift the definition of “reasonable” behavior by presenting evidence of standard practices that support their position, even if they may not represent the safest approach.

How to Build Evidence of Unreasonable Conduct for Your Case

You and your attorney must document evidence that can help strengthen your case. Take photos and videos of the incident and preserve any communication with the other party.

Witnesses can support your account of what happened. Obtain their contact information and ask for a written statement from them. Expert testimonies can further explain the extent of your injuries or what occurred. This is essential when dealing with the insurance company.

Track records of all your medical records and expenses related to your incident. This will help you link your injuries or damages to your potential case.

Pursue Legal Actions with Schmidt Kramer Personal Injury Attorneys

The reasonable person standard is a benchmark for proving negligence in Harrisburg personal injury cases. This standard applies to your circumstances and can mean the difference between fair compensation and an insufficient settlement.

At Schmidt Kramer, our attorneys have decades of experience helping our clients get the compensation they need for recovery. We can help you establish the value of your case and take it to trial if it goes to court. Schedule a free consultation with one of our attorneys. We do not charge any legal fees unless we win your case.

Speak to one of our attorneys today: 717-727-2500.

Free Case Review

No Upfront Fees

Testimonials

Mike Kosik and his team were incredible. I cannot thank them enough for their hard work and dedication after taking on my case following an auto accident in April 2022 where a driver pulled out in front of me. I highly recommend them should you ever need a personal injury attorney. Thank you so much!
My Atty took good care of all my needs during my issues I was well represented and everything was made clear and up front. I would highly recommend using this office
I can't thank Schmidt Kramer, P.C. enough for their dedication and hard work on my case. After my injury, dealing with the insurance company was overwhelming, but their team stepped in and fought tirelessly to ensure I got the benefits I needed for treatment. They kept me informed every step of the way and worked diligently to reach a fair settlement. Their professionalism, expertise, and compassion made all the difference. If you're looking for a personal injury firm that truly cares and delivers results, I highly recommend Schmidt Kramer, P.C.!
Erhan Yayla
Great compassionate group of people who truly listen & help where needed!
Karen Steyers
Dear Scott,
Hello there! I’m a little late to the game here, but I wanted to be certain I wrote to you. Oops—sorry for the typo! As you’ve probably gathered, I am writing you from a typewriter. Do you still use these in the office? Back on topic, I wanted to take a moment to express my deep gratitude for your guidance and support throughout the entire legal process for my accident. Can you believe it’s been five years?? Your attention to detail, professionalism, and delicate handling of my case made an incredibly difficult time more manageable for me and my family. We’re forever grateful.
From the moment you stepped foot in that hospital room with me, I felt relieved to have someone in my corner like you and your team. You took the time not only to explain each legal step in a way that made sense but also to acknowledge the emotional weight of what I was going through. That delicate balance—handling the intricacies of my case with precision while also being sensitive to my well-being—is something I will always be grateful for. In many ways, the outcome of the case reflected your dedication, but what has stayed with me even more is how you treated me throughout the process—with patience, respect, and compassion. You listened to my concerns and reassured me in moments of uncertainty. And even now, I feel your compassion each year on my birthday when I receive a text from you!
Thank you, not just for the outcome, but for the way you handled each moment. You are an incredible lawyer, but more importantly, an incredible person, and I was fortunate to have you in my corner.
With heartfelt gratitude,
Ricky D

Recent Results

$10,043,952.13 Personal Injury
Schmidt Kramer, P.C.partner Gerard C. Kramer won a personal injury action for $10,043,952.13 in Northumberland County on behalf of a volunteer firefighter who was the victim of Intentional Tort. The 50-year-old volunteer firefighter was seriously injured when a barn collapsed, causing a spinal injury which left him a paraplegic. The claim was brought against the arsonist who intentionally started the fire. It is believed that the verdict is the highest ever in Northumberland County.
View Results
$4,034,000.00 Personal Injury
Yesterday a Judge in Union County (Lewisburg, PA) awarded a couple from New Berlin, Pennsylvania, over $4,000,000 because the husband was shot while turkey hunting.You might ask yourself, how does a turkey hunting accident end up with that type of verdict? In order to understand the verdict you would have to know our clients. They are good people who had their life wrecked. Plus, you would have to know the defendant, who should not have been hunting with a gun because he was prohibited after a previous criminal conviction.It is a good verdict, because the Judge was able to do two things with his decision. First, he communicated to two very good people that their losses were something that those of us on the outside could appreciate and value. Mike Hobbins (our client) is a 51 year old guy who lost his sight because a convicted felon --who should not have even possessed a gun-- went hunting illegally, and broke with impunity the most fundamental rule in hunting: identify your target before you pull the trigger. The Judge accepted the financial loss Mr. Hobbins' suffered, but listened closely to the evidence of less tangible losses. When Mike broke down on the stand, because his daughter would end up walking him down the aisle at her wedding, as opposed to how it was supposed to go, the Judge was listening. When Mike could not keep it together, because of how emasculating it was for him not to be able to provide financially for his family, the Judge was listening. It was facts like these that the Judge cited to support the $2,000,000 award for non-economic damages. Second, the Judge wanted to send a message. Union County is a hunting county. Many of the residents hunt there, and people from outside the area come to Union County to hunt. It was my impression, from the Judge's statements as he rendered his decision, that he wanted to send a message to the people in Union County to protect them in their sport. The rules in place to restrict people convicted of crimes not to have a gun are not to be broken. Hunting is serious and you have to identify your target before you shoot. When you turn your back on the rules that are set to provide safety in a sport, you risk being an example. Here, the $1,000,000 punitive damage award sends that message loud and clear.When it really comes down to brass tacks, the right action was taken against a Defendant who may never truly appreciate what kind of impact his reckless choices caused.At Schmidt Kramer, we are injury lawyers. That means we work with people who were hurt in car accidents, who were hurt by the neglect of nursing homes, or those that were seriously injured because of the reckless, thoughtless acts of others. If you or a loved one have been injured in Pennsylvania, we may be able to help. While the verdict yesterday is not one that is representative of every case we do, it does show that serious and dedicated representation can bring good results.Joe ChapmanJanuary 18, 2013
View Results
$2,200,000.00 Auto Accidents
On Monday, January 6, 2014, Schmidt Kramer accident lawyer Scott Cooper obtained a verdict on behalf of his client who is the widow of a man who died in a fiery crash on Interstate 78 in Lebanon County. The awarded verdict of $2.2 million was in a nonjury proceeding before a federal judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. That verdict includes $100,000 in punitive damages assessed against the owner of the trucking company.Kamilah Claxton won summary judgment in November after the defendants, Sukhwinder Singh and the trucking company for which he worked, failed to file a brief in opposition to Claxton's motion, which was made in September. The verdict in Claxton v. Singh was issued after the court held a non-jury assessment of damages earlier this month."Mr. Sukhchan Singh, the employer, is liable on the basis of respondent superior, but was also grossly negligent in failing to maintain his vehicle in compliance with state and federal law, particularly with regard to having required safety inspections and correcting defects in its braking equipment," said U.S. District Judge William W. Caldwell of the Middle District of Pennsylvania in his opinion accompanying the verdict."He was also grossly negligent in entrusting his vehicle to Sukhwinder Singh, an inexperienced truck driver who had failed the written test and driving test multiple times before finally earning his commercial driving license," Caldwell said.
View Results
$1,200,000.00 Personal Injury
A Dauphin County jury has awarded a $1.2 million verdict to the parents of a 5-year-old who had an anoxic brain injury and stopped breathing after he had a tonsillectomy.2012-06-26 10:00:00 AMDate of Verdict: June 19. 2012Court and Case No.: C.P. Dauphin County No. 2009-CV-14003-MMJudge: Scott EvansType of Action: Medical malpracticeInjuries: Anoxic brain injuryPlaintiffs Counsel: Terry S. Hyman, Schmidt Kramer, HarrisburgPlaintiffs Experts: Dr. Anna H. Messner, liability; Lucille Packer, Pediatric Otolaryngology, Palo Alto, Calif.; Terry P. Leslie, vocations and earning capacity, Lancaster; Dr. Hilary B. Berlin, pediatric psychiatry, Great Neck, N.Y.Defense Counsel: Andrew H. Foulkrod, Darlene K. King, Foulkrod Ellis, Camp Hill, PADefense Experts: James C. Reilly, Pediatric Otolaryngology, Wilmington, DEComment: A Dauphin County jury has awarded a $1.2 million verdict to the parents of a 5-year-old who had an anoxic brain injury and stopped breathing after he had a tonsillectomy.The entire verdict came against Dr. Andrew M. Shapiro, the doctor who plaintiffs Reginald Graham and Tykeisha Metz alleged chose to have the boy monitored at a pediatric ward. The plaintiffs argued Shapiro failed to tell nurses caring for the baby about, and how to care for, the boy's enhanced risk for respiratory failure.The jury came back on June 19 and awarded Reginald Graham and Tykeisha Mets $500,000 in non-economic damages and $686,170 in loss of future earning capacity, according to the plaintiffs counsel.According to the statement, the baby's mother brought him to Shapiro because she was "'afraid that he might stop breathing during his sleep,'" the plaintiffs' pretrial statement said. Shapiro performed a sleep study and observed the baby's Apnea Hypopnea Index to be 43 — four times higher than what's considered severe. A tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy were performed.According to the plaintiffs, the baby's sleep study results put him at an increased risk for post-operative respiratory complications. Despite this, they argued in the statement, Shapiro ordered the pediatric nurses at the Harrisburg Hospital general pediatric ward to observe the boy as they would any other patients — about once every four hours.The pretrial statement said that one in four children who have an AHI in the 40s and oxygen desaturation below 80 have some type of respiratory problem. The younger the child, the greater the risk of a respiratory problem, the statement said.According to the statement, Shapiro took off the child's pulse oximeter, the finger-mounted device used to measure blood oxygen, and ordered a heart and respiratory rate monitor. The child was 11 months old at the time.The plaintiffs pled that the baby was last seen at 4 a.m. There was no record of his oxygen saturation for the next hour and 45 minutes. He stopped breathing a 6:40 a.m., and his brain was without oxygen long enough to cause demonstrable injury on an MRI."Immediately prior to his surgery, [the child] was a normal child, who could say mama, eat finger foods, and was just on the verge of walking," the statement said. "After his code, [he] was like a newborn. He could not lift his head or sit up. He could not talk. He could not move."In his pretrial statement, Shapiro argued that he recognized the child's pre-operative sleep study showed he was driven to breath by decreased blood oxygen saturation, which he said was typical in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.He argued the American Academy of Otolaryngology dictates that admission to the intensive care unit is not the standard of care. In the statement, he said nurses did not observe signs of respiratory distress. No alarms sounded until the child arrested, the statement said.He said the baby likely arrested as a result of hypoglycemia and/or an acute aspiration, which he argued would not have been identified by blood oxygen saturation.— Ben Present, of the Law Weekly
View Results
$1,024,040.80 Auto Accidents
Scott Cooper settled a wrongful death case on behalf of the widow of a police office who was killed in a car accident in the line of duty for $1,024,040.80. The claim against the other driver was amicably resolved before suit was filed for the entire available policy limits for the other driver. The case took place in Adams County, PA.
View Results

What Is the Reasonable Person Standard, and How Does It Affect Your Harrisburg Injury Case?

Table of Contents