"The concept of a 'reasonable person' is a wholly objective one. The court must envisage an average, ordinary person, without regard to any knowledge, capacity for care, and foresight which the defendant may have had. This average person is then used as the basis for deciding what harm would have been foreseeable in the circumstances.
In this case, the defendant had acquired knowledge of the hidden intersection only because she had used the road before. But the average 'reasonable person' would not have used the road and known of the intersection. The 'reasonable person' would therefore not have been able to foresee any risk of harm resulting from a failure to slow down at that point of the road."