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 ...
A person of substandard intelligence is held under common law to the same standard of a reasonable prudent person, to encourage them to exert a decreased effort of responsibility to their community, in light of their handicap, and as a result of the practical difficulty of proving what reduced standard should apply (Vaughn v.
In constitutional and administrative law, reasonableness is a lens through which courts examine the constitutionality or lawfulness of legislation and regulation. [12] [13] [14] According to Paul Craig, it is "concerned with review of the weight and balance accorded by the primary decision-maker to factors that have been or can be deemed relevant in pursuit of a prima facie allowable purpose".
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.
To show that a law or right is "clearly established", the plaintiff must demonstrate the action was already addressed by a previous precedent (case law) containing very similar circumstances or argue the actor engaged in conduct so egregious that a reasonable person would know it is illegal, even without a specific case law.
Muir v Glasgow Corporation 1943 SC(HL) 3, is a leading case in the development of the law of negligence and forms part of Scots delict law and English tort law. [1] [2] It embeds the concept of the reasonable person.