Canada inherited England`s reasonable person standard in Vaughn v. Menlove, 1837 132 ER 490. In this case, a person with « inferior intelligence » (as mentioned in the case) built a shabby haystack too close to the plaintiff`s land. The accused was warned that the haystack was poorly constructed, ignoring this advice. Unfortunately, the haystack spontaneously burned and destroyed part of the applicant`s property. While the legal fiction[3] of the reasonable person represents the ideal human actor, it would be difficult to characterize a single person to meet the standard, either in whole or in part, all the time. Since some human actors have limitations, the norm only requires that people act in the same way that « a reasonable person would do in the circumstances, » as if their limits were themselves circumstances. Therefore, the courts require that the reasonable person be considered subject to the same restrictions as the defendant. For example, a defendant with a disability is required to meet a standard that necessarily represents how a reasonable person with the same disability would act. [24] This tolerance of physical limitations should not be confused with permission to exercise poor judgment, attempt actions beyond one`s abilities, act too quickly, etc. If such considerations were taken into account for each defendant, there would be as many different standards of negligence as there would be defendants; And the courts would spend countless hours and the parties would spend much more money determining the relevance, character and intelligence of that particular defendant. The law of tort is a higher area of law that aims to correct injustices that have occurred between individuals. The courts assess whether the victim, who is often the plaintiff, has been harmed by another person and whether the victim is entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained.
If the damage occurred unintentionally or negligently, the court will apply the reasonable person standard. These cases show that reasonably foreseeable risk is an essential element of liability and that context is important in determining whether negligence has occurred. A word of caution. The word « reasonable » is used in a variety of legal contexts, some of which have very little to do with the reasonable person. In antitrust law, for example, the notion of « unreasonable restriction of trade » is crucial, but this issue has nothing to do with the reasonable person of tort and criminal law, at least superficially. While it is up to the jury to decide what is reasonable in a particular situation, the jury evaluates the conduct on the basis of an objective and reasonable person. They don`t look at what is specifically reasonable for a person. Instead, the test is an objective, unified assessment of behavior that applies to everyone in society. If you or someone you love has been harmed because someone else did not act like a « reasonable person, » you may be entitled to compensation. Our personal injury attorneys in New York have extensive experience in defendants` negligence liability and have recovered more than $2 billion for clients over the past 10 years.
Call our office at (212) 732-9000 and speak to a highly qualified lawyer for free today. The concept of reason most familiar to contemporary law students was introduced by Justice Learned Hand in the famous Carroll Towing case. In the case of common law contracts, disputes relating to the conclusion of the contract are subject to the so-called objective consent test for determining whether a contract exists. This standard is also referred to as official spectator, reasonable spectator, reasonable third party or reasonable person in the position of the party. [44] This contrasts with the subjective test used in most civil law systems. The test results from attempts to balance the competing interests of judicial policy of consent and reliability. The first stipulates that no one should be contractually obligated unless he has accepted such an agreement; The latter claims that if no one can rely on actions or words that demonstrate consent, the entire trading system will eventually collapse. [45] English jurist Percy Henry Winfield has summarized much of the literature by noting that: The reasonable standard of the person does not take into account the mentally ill. [28] Such a rejection goes back to the Menlove standard, in which counsel for Menlove argued in favour of the subjective standard.
In the 170 years since then, the law has adhered to the legal decision to have only the single, objective standard. Such judicial adherence sends the message that the mentally ill would do better to refrain from risky action unless they exercise an increased degree of restraint and precaution if they intend to evade responsibility. In this case, the jury looks at each driver`s actions based on what a reasonable person would do. A reasonable person stops at a red light. A reasonable person would not try to cross an intersection if he or she does not have the right of way. The jury decides the case by comparing each person`s actions to what the fictitious and reasonable person would have done if faced with the same circumstances. When we oppose the rational to the rational, the concept of the reasonable goes beyond instrumental rationality. It may be rational for me to steal from you, but unreasonable for me to do so. Why not? Well, that`s quite a question. One answer is based on the idea that the reasonable is somehow related to what might be justified for others.
Another idea is that reasonableness is somehow specified by what others would accept. In 1835, Adolphe Quetelet described the characteristics of the average man (French). His work is translated into English in different ways. As a result, some authors choose « average man », « ordinary man », « reasonable man » or stick to the original « average man ». Quetelet was a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician and sociologist. He documented the physical characteristics of humans on a statistical basis and discussed the motivations of humans when acting in society. [14] It is an ideal, a standard, the embodiment of all the qualities we demand of a good citizen. [he] invariably looks at where he`s going. Be sure to examine the immediate foreground before performing a jump or boundary; neither stargazing nor getting lost in meditation when approaching hatches or the edges of a dock; never gets a moving [bus] and does not get out of a car while the train is in motion. uses nothing but in moderation and even whips his child by meditating only on the middle ground. [20] Ultimately, the jury decides the case. But you need to provide them with the evidence and arguments they need to make the right decision.
By carefully preparing the evidence and preparing your legal strategies, you can ensure that you have a case designed to succeed. Even with a strong case, the insurance company may be more willing to settle for a reasonable amount without having to go to court. A legal standard applied to defendants in cases of negligence to establish their liability.