A «reasonable person» is a hypothetical person who approaches each situation with appropriate caution and then acts reasonably. This is a standard created to provide courts and juries with an objective test that can be used to decide whether a person`s actions constitute negligence. That doesn`t mean they have to be perfect. Mistakes are made, and if it is a reasonable error in the circumstances, a person cannot be held responsible. There are also inevitable accidents where injuries occur, or cases where it is impossible to tell what a person has done in critical moments. However, if it is clear how a «reasonable person» would have behaved and a defendant is not acting in accordance with this standard, he or she may be considered negligent in any type of bodily injury. Under U.S. common law, a known — though non-binding — test for determining how a reasonable person could weigh the criteria listed above was established in United States v. Carroll Towing Co.[23] 1947 by the Chief Justice of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Learned Hand. The case concerned a barge that had pierced its berth with the wharf. In a letter to the court, Hand said: Reasonable person standard The relevant jurisprudence and language of the NMFS Regulation underscore the «reasonable person» point by setting the standard for substantive information that the ESA does not require «conclusive evidence of a high probability of species extinction» to support a 90-day affirmative determination.
See e.B. Ctr. Very often, for example in the case of noise regulations, enforcement only serves to protect the right of a «reasonable person of normal sensitivity.» [54] [55] [56] A success of the negligence claim depends on the plaintiff`s ability to prove that a defendant did not act appropriately. This includes proving that the risk of harm was foreseeable, meaning that the defendant knew that his actions were reprehensible; and the definition of alternative measures that a reasonable person would have taken. The jury will examine the person`s behaviour objectively, based on the person`s knowledge, conscience and mental capacity to behave in the same way as a reasonable person. However, the law will not make unique concessions for beginners, learners or trainees in a particular skill. They shall be maintained at the same level of care or conduct as a reasonably qualified person would exercise. Another circumstance in which the appropriate spectator test is used occurs when one party has inadvertently distorted the terms of the contract and the other party sues to enforce those conditions: if a reasonable viewer had been aware that an error had been made, the contract is voidable by the party who made the mistake; otherwise, the contract is concluded. According to the courts, a reasonable person carefully avoids creating a foreseeable risk of injury to others. In Moule v. New Brunswick Electric Power Board, (1960) 24 DLR (2d) 305 (CSC), the defendant power company removed tree branches so that it could place high-voltage wires on telephone poles in a wooded area. A 10-year-old child climbed the tree and fell.
During his fall, he reached out and touched the live wires. The court noted that children who climb trees and come into contact with tightly suspended live wires pose a predictable risk that energy companies would have to address by making the wires visible. However, given that the power company laid the wires above the ground and removed the branches, the court found that the power company was taking reasonable precautions. The court stated: «The defendant should not be found guilty of negligence because he did not foresee the possibility of the occurrence of an event as unlikely as in this case and was held against him by the removal of the maple.» If a defendant`s mental abilities render the actions involuntary or prevent a person from adhering to the standard of care, there can be no liability for negligence. In addition, it can be argued that a defendant has not acted negligently if he suddenly suffers, without warning, from an intellectual disability that renders him incapable of both: a legal standard applied to defendants in cases of negligence to establish their liability. All members of the community have a duty to act as a reasonable person when it comes to taking or avoiding actions that may harm others. If a person does not act as a reasonable person and his failure hurts someone, he or she can be held liable to that person for such violations. Whether a person meets the standard of a reasonable person is often a question of fact that the jury must determine – so the decision as to whether a person acted reasonably remains with twelve members of the community. Before a party can be held liable for negligent damages, it must be determined whether the defendant would have acted as a «reasonable person» in a similar situation. Negligence occurs when there is a failure to behave with the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise. Therefore, the behaviour of a «reasonable person» weighs heavily on an injury case.
As a legal fiction[3], the «reasonable person» is not an average person or a typical person, which leads to great difficulties in applying the term in some criminal cases, particularly with regard to the partial defence of provocation. [7] The standard also states that every person has a duty to behave as a reasonable person would in the same or similar circumstances. [8] [9] While the particular circumstances of each case require different behaviours and degrees of care, the standard of the reasonable person himself or herself does not vary. [10] [11] The interpretation of «reasonable person» applies in many areas of the law. The standard plays a crucial role in determining negligence in both criminal law – that is, criminal negligence – and tort law. For example, a defendant with a disability is bound by a standard that necessarily represents how a reasonable person with the same disability would act. [26] This is not an excuse for poor judgment or for attempting to act beyond one`s abilities. If that were the case, there would be as many standards as there would be defendants; and the courts would spend countless hours and the parties much more money determining the relevance, character and intelligence of that particular defendant. [Citation needed] While community practices may be invoked to indicate the type of action to be provided for in the circumstances, the circumstances themselves are inconclusive as to what a reasonable person would do. [19] [39] Determining whether a defendant is guilty of a particular crime could involve the use of an objective test comparing the respondent`s conduct to that of a reasonable person in similar circumstances […].