The Reasonably Careful Person
At the heart of civil negligence theory is the idea of individual responsibility.
A person is negligent when he fails to do something that a reasonably careful person would do, or he does something that a reasonably careful person would not do, under the same or similar circumstances. An assessment of negligence, in the legal context, examines a person’s duty to other members of society and analyzes whether the person breached this duty. This inquiry becomes significant in the context of a civil lawsuit when the negligent act causes injury to another person.
Members of our society are expected to act with ordinary care for the safety of others. If a member of society fails to do something a reasonably careful person would do under the circumstances, and that failure causes injury to another person, we expect the offending person to make right his wrong. A negligence lawsuit is necessary when an offending member of society refuses to make right the wrong.
The concept that each member of society should act with ordinary care for the safety of others is known as a “duty.” Each member of society owes his fellow members a civil duty to act with reasonable care for the safety of others. When a person fails to act with reasonable care for the safety of another, that is called a “breach of duty.”
The law does not define how a reasonably careful person should act. How a reasonably careful person should act is a question of fact for a jury to decide. The first question a jury must answer in a negligence lawsuit is, “was the defendant’s action something which a reasonably careful person would do, or something a reasonably careful person would not do, under the same or similar circumstances as those presented by the evidence.” If the answer is that the defendant failed to act with ordinary care, then the jury should find that the defendant was negligent.
If a jury determines that a person acted negligently, the next question they must consider is whether the negligent act caused the complained of injury. This concept is known as “causation.” In Illinois, a person is liable for any injury proximately caused by his negligent act. The expression “proximate cause” means,
A cause that, in the natural or ordinary course of events, produced the plaintiff’s injury. It need not be the only cause, nor the last or nearest cause. It is sufficient if it combines with another cause resulting in the injury. IPI 15.01.
If a jury determines that a person’s injuries were caused by the defendant’s negligent act, the jury must determine the extent of that injury and assign a monetary value to the claim that will help make right the wrong. In Illinois, this includes medical bills for reasonable and necessary medical care required to treat the injury, the pain and suffering caused by the injury, any loss of use of a normal life or disability caused by the injury, disfigurement, and emotional distress. This concept is called “damages”.
At the heart of civil negligence theory is the idea of individual responsibility. A member of society should take responsibility for the damage caused when he breaches his duty to act with reasonable care for the safety of others. If the individual will not take responsibility willingly, society, represented by the jury, will hold him accountable for the damage caused by the negligent act.