Which question helps assess negligence in a tort case?

The question "Would a reasonable person behave similarly?" is crucial in assessing negligence in a tort case because it establishes a standard for determining whether an individual's actions were appropriate under the circumstances. The concept of the "reasonable person" is central to negligence law; it serves as a benchmark against which a defendant's conduct can be measured. If it can be shown that a reasonable person in the same situation would have acted differently, it supports the claim that the defendant's actions were negligent. This inquiry focuses on the duty of care owed to others and whether that duty was breached, which is essential for establishing negligence.

In contrast to this, questions regarding intentional infliction of harm, breach of contract, or damage to property do not directly apply to the negligence standard. Intentional harm deals with cases where harm is purposely inflicted, which is outside the realm of negligence. Breach of contract pertains to failing to fulfill obligations in an agreement, which is a separate area of law not concerned with negligence. Damage to property might result from negligent actions, but it does not itself assess whether the actions were negligent without asking about the reasonable person's behavior.