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]
Such a person is held excused from liability, even if such failure might endanger others. An ordinary prudent person is not under any obligation to undertake a heroic duty at the risk of his own life. "The first duty in an emergency is to one's own self, as long as that person did not contribute to or cause the emergency." (Emergency Doctrine.)
The prudent man rule is based on common law stemming from the 1830 Massachusetts court formulation Harvard College v. Amory. [1] The prudent man rule, written by Massachusetts Justice Samuel Putnam (1768–1853), directs trustees "to observe how men of prudence, discretion and intelligence manage their own affairs, not in regard to speculation, but in regard to the permanent disposition of ...
Reasonable danger [5] Reasonable diligence [8] Reasonable doubt; Reasonable expectation [5] (Legitimate expectation is sometimes called reasonable expectation.) [9] Reasonable facilities [5] [7] Reasonable fitness [5] Reasonable mind [5] Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing; Reasonable person or reasonable man [5] Reasonable portion [5 ...
That is, a reasonable person would foresee the risk of harm. (R. v. DeSousa) Establish mens rea of predicate offence. Establish foresight of risk of death. Must show that a reasonable person in the circumstances and possessing the characteristics of the accused would foresee the act creating a risk of death. Lamer went into great detail on this ...
Finally, the court held that the question of whether the defendant was liable because of negligence in violation of the reasonable person standard was a proper question for the jury ("The care taken by a prudent man has always been the rule laid down; and as to the supposed difficulty of applying it, a jury has always been able to say, whether ...
Negligence – failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. Breach of duty – There can be no liability in negligence unless the claimant established that he or she was owed a duty of care by the defendant and that there has been a breach of that duty.
The usual definition of the probable cause standard includes “a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person’s belief that certain facts are probably true.” [6] Notably, this definition does not require that the person making the recognition must hold a public office or have public authority, which allows the ...