Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In law, a reasonable person, reasonable man, sometimes referred to situationally, [1] is a hypothetical person whose character and care conduct, under any common set of facts, is decided through reasoning of good practice or policy. [2] [3] It is a legal fiction [4] crafted by the courts and communicated through case law and jury instructions. [5]
English and U.S. courts later began to move toward a standard of negligence based on a universal duty of care in light of the "reasonable person" test. Vaughan v. Menlove is often cited as the seminal case which introduced the “reasonable person” test not only to the tort law, but to jurisprudence generally. [2] [3] This assertion is false. [4]
The man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical ordinary and reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted as a reasonable person would – for example, in a civil action for negligence. The character is a reasonably educated, intelligent but nondescript person, against whom the ...
This is an objective standard where the 'reasonable person' test is applied to determine if the defendant has breached their duty of care. In other words, it is the response of a reasonable person to a foreseeable risk. The standard of care naturally varies over time, and is affected by circumstantial factors.
In New South Wales, the test is how a reasonable person (or other standard of care) would respond to the risk in the circumstances considering the 'probability that the harm would occur if care were not taken' [5] [6] and, 'the likely seriousness of the harm', [5] [7] 'the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm', [5] [8] and the ...
The first two prongs of the Miller test are held to the standards of the community, and the third prong is based on "whether a reasonable person would find such value in the material, taken as a whole". [5] For legal scholars, several issues are important. One is that the test allows for community standards rather than a national standard.
If the jury was satisfied that the defendant was provoked, the test was whether a reasonable person would have acted as the defendant did – an objective test. It was held in Camplin [ 14 ] that the accused's age and sex could be attributed to the reasonable man when the jury considered the defendant's power of self-control.
Lord Macmillan spoke on the test for the reasonable man, saying, "The standard of foresight of the reasonable man is, in one sense, an impersonal test. It eliminates the personal equation and is independent of the idiosyncrasies of the particular person whose conduct is in question.