 Hi, it's Weyland and I'll be talking about the tort of negligence in determining whether or not a particular person is Liable for negligence. We have to show or the plaintiff has to show that the defendant breached the applicable standard of care So the question that we need to consider is you know was the defendant careful enough? Or an even more specific question that a court would look at would be What would a reasonable person do in similar circumstances now? So that begs the question, you know, who is this reasonable person? Yeah, we don't know who exactly this person is. It's not it could be male. It could be female We don't know what their experience or what their upbringing is But let's let's let's let's find out some clues that courts have given us as to who is the reasonable person now Now to be clear the reasonable person Is not the defendant we are not asking You know whether or not the defendant did their best in that particular situation when the accident happened The the legal test that we apply here for standard of care is what's called an objective test and not a Subjective test. We're not asking subjectively whether or not the actual person Now did their best in in avoiding or or doing their job to avoid The accident we are asking whether or not a reasonable person Would have caused the same accident now in determining what a reasonable person would do in similar circumstances You know courts Have given us some clues or guidance So courts have said that a reasonable person takes precautions against foreseeable risks But not necessarily precautions against every conceivable danger Another another clue that we we have from from previous court decisions is that A reasonable person considers likely the likelihood of harm and the potential severity Of harm so a reasonable person would would logically sit down and think you know, how likely is something wrong Going to happen and and you know, how severe will be the consequences And another person another thing that a reasonable person would do is that a reasonable person would adopt affordable Precautions to prevent against mishap or or accidents or or injury So a reasonable person does consider the the the cost so there is a cost benefit analysis that a reasonable person Would would apply A reasonable person to takes risks in where Social utility is involved So a reasonable person would take greater risk if it involves an emergency kind of situation where Where the reasonable person is trying to save someone's life for example And related to that is also the sudden Parallel doctrine Which which allows a reasonable person to to make mistakes where Where there are difficult circumstances circumstances, especially in an emergency situation So we so we cut a person more slack in an emergency situation If the person being sued for negligence happens to be a professional such as a lawyer a doctor or accountant Or an engineer for example Then we we don't apply the general standard of a reasonable person because a A reasonable person Does not have the the the expertise or training of any of those professionals So we apply a higher standard to professionals the the question that we ask is what would a reasonably competent and experienced professional Do in similar circumstances? So who is this reasonable professional? So this reasonable professional is reasonably competent and reasonably experienced And if whatever level of expertise is being claimed by by the professional If they claim to be a doctor we hold them to the standard of a reasonable doctor So even if that if that person is either exaggerating or just or just plain lying about being a doctor If if that's what they say they are we hold them To the standard of a reasonably or reasonably competent and experienced doctor Now if if a if a professional Holds himself out to be a specialist So if a doctor says they are a heart specialist or a cardiologist Then they are held to that to the higher standard of a reasonably competent and experienced cardiologist Not not the standard of a reasonable. So a general practitioner If we have an inexperienced professional, let's say a lawyer fresh out of law school We don't cut that person any slack for being inexperienced We still hold them to the to the higher standard of being reasonably competent and reasonably experienced Our professionals are allowed to make errors of judgment and not be held liable for them So there is a difference between error an error of judgment and negligence An error of judgment is where a reasonable professional in that same situation You might have made the same decision So that would be considered an error of judgment for which there is no there is no liability under negligence Now in determining whether someone was reasonably competent And experienced in a particular situation we have to base it on the information that's reasonably available at the time of the accident It's always easy to look at the information that comes to light after an accident to assess Whether or not someone was negligent or not We you know that would be that would be an unfair way of assessing negligence We have to base it on the information that's reasonably available at the time of the accident If a professional happens to follow approved practice and still the accident happened or someone gets hurt Then usually there's no liability for having followed that standard professional practice So that standard professional practice could it is often you know set by the by the governing body for a particular profession As well sometimes uh under particular statutes There are there are certain requirements that have to be met by a professional if a professional happens To comply with that statutory standard that is at least a significant factor in determining That the professional exercise reasonable care and therefore is not Is not uh liable or has not breached the standard of care