Which doctrine compares the actions of an individual with that of a reasonable person in similar circumstances?

The doctrine that compares the actions of an individual with that of a reasonable person in similar circumstances is known as the Reasonable Man Doctrine. This principle is used primarily in tort law to establish the standard of care that a person is expected to adhere to in order to avoid being found negligent.

In this context, evaluating the behavior of an individual involves assessing whether their actions align with what an average, prudent person would have done under comparable conditions. The Reasonable Man Doctrine serves as a benchmark for determining liability; if a person's conduct falls short of this standard, they may be considered negligent and therefore responsible for any resulting damages.

Other options do not fulfill the same function: Strict Liability involves holding a party accountable regardless of fault or intent for certain actions or products; the Negligence Standard assesses breaches of duty without specifically comparing to a reasonable person; and the Comparative Fault Rule pertains to apportioning blame between parties in tort cases rather than assessing individual behavior against a standard.