Which analysis standard is applied when determining if a person acted negligently?

The correct choice is the reasonable person standard, which serves as a foundational concept in tort law when evaluating negligence. This standard assesses how a typical, rational individual would act in similar circumstances. It establishes an objective benchmark for behavior and determines whether a person's actions fell short of what a reasonable person would have done, potentially leading to harm or injury.

In negligence cases, the focus is not on the subjective intent or abilities of the individual being assessed, but on whether their conduct aligns with that of an average person. If the actions of the individual deviated significantly from that expected behavior, it may lead to the conclusion that they acted negligently.

The professional standard, while relevant in situations involving specialized fields, is not the universal measure for all negligence claims and applies specifically within contexts such as medical malpractice or other professions where specialized knowledge is necessary. The statutory standard might refer to specific laws, but those typically serve as minimum requirements rather than overarching criteria for determining negligence. The common law standard, while it has historical importance and could overlap in certain cases, is ultimately encapsulated within the reasonable person standard as it seeks to establish expectations for general conduct.