The judicial system recognizes a reasonable person as a hypothetical person of fictitious nature crafted by the law courts and communicated by the case law and jury instructions. One is morally obligated to look at all the case’s perspectives before establishing how a reasonable man would have acted. The reasonable person rule is a lawful conceptualization, it is the legitimate standard applied during the evaluation of individuals involved in an accident. Each person’s conduct in the case is often compared to the actions a fictional, rational individual would employ when faced with a similar situation. If one’s deportment is considered appropriate compared to that of a reasonable individual in the situation, one’s actions may not be deemed negligent and vice versa. When one acts neglectfully, they are subject to lawful liability, particularly if their deeds culminated in an accident.
The “reasonable person” is a legitimate fiction and, therefore, not a typical or average individual. This is technically an objective standard, not a subjective one, so it doesn’t consider any specific aspects of the defendant. It means that everyone is held to the same level. Given the uncertainties that accompany life, the logical standards of reasoning are undemocratic in their scope. An individual might react negatively in a tight situation, i.e., in a mannerism that supports not rational reasoning but rather regular or average reasoning. Although the action portrayed by a defendant in a personal injury suit may not be considered rational, it is generally unfair to justify one’s actions by comparing them to a fictitious logical chain of events.