The whole theory of negligence presuposes some uniform standard of behavior. Yet the infinite variety of situations which may arise makes it impossible to fix definite rules in advance for all conceivable human conduct. The standard of conduct which the community demands must be an external and objective one, rather than the individual judgement, good or bad, of the particular actor; and it must be, so far as possible, the same for all persons, since the law can have no favorites. At the same time, it must make proper allowance for the risk apparent to the actor, for his capacity to meet it, and for the circumstances under which he must act [act, to]. The courts have dealt with this very difficult problem by creating a fictious person, who never has existed on land or sea: the reasonable man of ordinary prudence. Sometimes he is described as a reasonable person, or a person of ordinary prudence, or a person of reasonable prudence, or some othe blend of reason and caution. (...) The actor is required to do what such an ideal individual would be supposed to do in his place. (...) he is rather a personification of a community ideal of reasonable behavior, determined by the jury's social judgment. (...) Depending on the context (...) the reasonable person standard may, in fact, combine in varying measure both objective and subjective ingredients