California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Daniels v. S. Cal. Edison Co., E069183 (Cal. App. 2019):
For example, in car accident cases, in some circumstances, the reasonably prudent thing is to stop the car; while in another case, under different circumstances, the reasonably prudent thing is to slow the car; yet, in a third case, under other circumstances, the reasonably prudent thing is to proceed at a higher rate of speed; and in a fourth case, in different circumstances, the reasonably prudent thing is to continue at the current speed and change nothing. (Eddy v. Stowe, supra, 43 Cal.App. at p. 797.)
Thus, it is the jury that "has the burden of deciding not only what the facts are but what the unformulated standard is of reasonable conduct." (Ramirez v. Plough, Inc., supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 547.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.