In 1850, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts accepted this standard in a case stemming from a man who was trying to beat two dogs with a cudgel, Brown v. Kendall. In 1837, a not-so-smart defendant who stacked hay ricks so that they spontaneously combusted was nonetheless found liable for the ensuing fires under this standard in the seminal case of Vaughan v. Menlove. For 10 points, name this standard in tort law Â that compares the actions of the defendant to those of a hypothetical being.
In 1850, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts accepted this standard in a case stemming from a man who was trying to beat two dogs with a cudgel, Brown v. Kendall. In 1837, a not-so-smart defendant who stacked hay ricks so that they spontaneously combusted was nonetheless found liable for the ensuing fires under this standard in the seminal case of Vaughan v. Menlove. For 10 points, name this standard in tort law Â that compares the actions of the defendant to those of a hypothetical being.
In 1850, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts accepted this standard in a case stemming from a man who was trying to beat two dogs with a cudgel, Brown v. Kendall.
reasonable person [or reasonably prudent person; or reasonable man; accept all reasonable things involving reasonability]