A pedestrian was injured when a car driven by a teenager swerved to avoid hitting a dog and ran onto the sidewalk. The teenager, who had a driver’s license, had just turned 16 and was driving in a manner consistent with how a typical 16-year-old might drive in similar circumstances. Which standard of care should be applied to determine whether the teenager was negligent?
The standard of care expected of someone with limited driving experience.
The standard of care expected of a typical 16-year-old with a driver's license.
The standard of care tailored to the teenager’s subjective judgment in this specific situation.
The standard of a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.
The correct answer is based on the principle that the standard of care in negligence law is typically that of a reasonably prudent person, regardless of the defendant’s age or subjective characteristics, except in narrowly defined situations such as the activities of children engaged in non-adult activities. Driving is generally considered an adult activity, so the teenager is held to the standard of an adult driver. Other answers are incorrect because they improperly apply subjective or relaxed standards based on the defendant's age or experience, which are not used in assessing negligence in this context.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is the standard of care for negligence law?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why is a 'reasonably prudent person' standard applied instead of an age-specific standard for teenagers?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the implications of holding teen drivers to an adult standard of care?