What Is the “Reasonable Person” Standard in a Georgia Negligence Case?
On this page
It is Georgia’s measure of ordinary care: “that degree of care which is exercised by ordinarily prudent persons under the same or similar circumstances” (O.C.G.A. § 51-1-2). A defendant breaches that standard if the conduct fell below what an ordinarily prudent person would have done in the same situation, whatever the defendant intended or believed. The standard changes for children, whose “due care” is measured by their own “mental and physical capacities” (§ 51-1-5), and for physicians, who must bring “a reasonable degree of care and skill” to their practice (§ 51-1-27).
The standard and its variations
| Who is being judged | The measure | Source |
|---|---|---|
| An adult, in an ordinary negligence case | The care "exercised by ordinarily prudent persons under the same or similar circumstances" | § 51-1-2 |
| A child of tender years, as to the child's own care | "Such care as the child's mental and physical capacities enable him to exercise in the actual circumstances of the occasion and situation under investigation" | § 51-1-5 |
| A child sued as a defendant | Infancy "is no defense to a tort action so long as the defendant has reached the age of discretion and accountability prescribed by Code Section 16-3-1", which is 13 years; a child under 13 is immune from tort suits | §§ 51-11-6, 16-3-1; Horton v. Hinely (1992) |
| A physician or surgeon | "A reasonable degree of care and skill" in practicing medicine for compensation | § 51-1-27 |
| A person bound to extraordinary diligence | "That extreme care and caution which very prudent and thoughtful persons exercise under the same or similar circumstances" | § 51-1-3 |
Why the adult standard is objective
The question is what an ordinarily prudent person would have done “under the same or similar circumstances”, not whether this defendant did the best that he or she personally could. Two things follow from the statutory wording:
- Circumstances count. The same act can be careful in one setting and careless in another; the comparison is always to a prudent person facing the same situation.
- Good intentions do not. For example, a driver who sincerely believed the road was clear is still measured against what a prudent driver would have seen and done.
Children: two different rules
The child rules work in two directions. Section 51-1-5 applies when the question is the child’s own care, for example whether an injured child was partly at fault: the measure is what that child’s mental and physical capacities allowed in the actual situation, not an adult’s care. Section 51-11-6 applies when the child is the defendant: once the child has reached 13, the age set by § 16-3-1, infancy is no defense to a tort action. The Supreme Court of Georgia has read the statute to mean that a child under 13 is immune from suit in tort. In Horton v. Hinely (1992), it affirmed the dismissal of claims against two nine-year-old boys and, adhering to Hatch v. O’Neill (1973) and Barrett v. Carter (1981), declined to treat age as only a defense for children between 7 and 13, leaving any change to the General Assembly.
How juries apply it
Whether conduct met the standard is decided on the facts of each case. Statutes and rules sometimes fix part of the answer: a driver’s duties under the Rules of the Road, for example, or a landowner’s duty of ordinary care to invitees under § 51-3-1. Where the defendant owed only slight diligence, the question becomes gross negligence instead; see the difference between ordinary and gross negligence. Breach is one of four elements; the others are explained in the four elements of a negligence claim.
Evidence that shows what a prudent person would do
- What the defendant knew, or could see, at the moment.
- Safety rules, statutes, or industry practices that applied.
- What other people in the same position did or would have done.
- For a child, evidence of the child’s age, maturity, and understanding.
Sources
- O.C.G.A. §§ 51-1-2, 51-1-3, 51-1-5, 51-1-27, 51-11-6, 16-3-1 (text as published in October 2016 on a mirror site; no amendment to these sections recorded in the 2022 to 2026 legislative summaries).
- Horton v. Hinely, 261 Ga. 863 (1992)
General information about Georgia law as of October 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.