Information about Reasonable Person

The reasonable man or reasonable person standard is an often used legal term that originated in the development of the common law. The "reasonable person" is a hypothetical individual who is intended to represent a sort of "average" citizen. The ability of this hypothetical individual to understand matters is consulted in the process of making decisions of law. The question, "How would a reasonable person act under the same or similar circumstances" performs a critical role in legal reasoning in areas such as negligence and contract law.

History and rationale behind the standard

The rationale for the reasonable person standard is that the law will benefit the general public when it serves its reasonable members, and thus a reasonable application of the law is sought, compatible with planning, working, or getting along with others. The reasonable person is not necessarily the "average person"; it is not a "democratic" measure. To predict the appropriate sense of responsibility and other standards of the reasonable person, "what is reasonable" has to be the primary question. (What the "average person" thinks or might do is irrelevant to a case concerning specialized technical knowledge, such as advanced mathematics.) But the reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. Such a person might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but whatever that person does or thinks is always "reasonable."

Oliver Wendell Holmes explained the reasonable person standard as resulting from the fact that for life in organized society, "a certain average of conduct, a sacrifice of individual peculiarities going beyond a certain point, is necessary to the general welfare." The law, consequently, "does not attempt to see men [people] as God sees them."^[1]

One of the earliest cases contributing to the development of the modern reasonable person standard was the 1837 English case Vaughan v. Menlove, which articulated a test based on the level of caution that "a man of ordinary prudence would observe."

Children and the reasonable person

Children are not usually held to a reasonable person standard. Children under the age of 6 or 7, in many states, are exempt as they are thought to be unable to understand risk involved in their actions and thus should not be held responsible to make reasonable choices. Children of ages 7 to 17 are usually held to a reasonable person standard that takes their age into account. One of the exceptions to this is when a child is involved in an adult activity such as driving a motor boat(Dellwo v. Pearson, 107 N.W.2d 859).

Professional negligence: the reasonable doctor

In cases where professional opinions may be necessary the doctrine of the reasonable professional has developed. Thus if a doctor misdiagnoses a patient, the question is not, "Was that diagnosis wrong?" but rather, "Would a professional acting under the same circumstances, with the knowledge available to the field at the time of the diagnosis, have concluded that the given diagnosis was reasonable?" Questions about the knowledge of a professional in a particular discipline in a particular environment are relevant here, "Is the reasonable professional an expert or a general practitioner in this area?" Of course as with any legal concept these lines of reasoning may be applied differently in differing jurisdictions.

Reasonable bystander

See also Offer and acceptance

A related notion, used in common law contract law, is that of a reasonable bystander or reasonable third party. It is also known as the objective theory of contract formation and it is distinguished from the subjective theory of contract formation that is accepted in most civil law jurisdictions. Sometimes, particularly in the context of verbal contracts, the existence of a contract is disputed because one party declares that there was no intention to be legally bound. Since it would be impractical for the court to try to determine the truth of this statement, it uses the following test instead: if the outward conduct of the parties would have indicated to a reasonable bystander a serious intention to enter into an agreement, then the contract is deemed legally binding. Another circumstance where the reasonable bystander is used occurs when one party has inadvertently misstated the terms of the contract, and the other party sues to enforce those terms: if it would have been clear to a reasonable bystander that a mistake had been made, then the contract is voidable by the party who made the error; otherwise, the contract is binding.

Some critical approaches to the reasonable person standard

The use of the term reasonable man has been criticized as being sexist by some feminist, critical legal studies, and other legal theorists. This has led to the increasing adoption of the term "reasonable person" in many jurisdictions. (In U.S. law, the term "reasonable woman" does exist, but is limited to situations involving a determination of whether sexual harassment, or elements contributing to sexual harassment or discrimination, existed.)

Advocates of the reasonable person standard defend it as an exercise in approaching objectivity, while critics see it as another form of political correctness.

The jurist or legislator pretends to see through another's eyes, and in light of the characteristics of a given situation tries to subtract every petty human trait and unrealistic expectation, as a balancing test; to ask, for example, "Is the transaction cost of proposed conduct worth it in the hypothetical situation?" The problem, critics argue, is that this leaves no room for a heroic use of law. How can there be limits on efforts to prevent the negligent loss of life or limb, prejudiced in favor of a cold, economic calculus of loss, to determine when human life is "worth it?"

Satire

The legal humourist A. P. Herbert considered the concept of the Reasonable Man at length in the celebrated fictional case of Fardell v Potts.

See also

• Torts
• Contract theory
• Beyond a reasonable doubt
• Casuistry
• Reasonable suspicion
• Reasonable woman
• The man on the Clapham omnibus

References