| Reasonable Person |
Article Index for Reasonable |
Website Links For Person |
Information AboutReasonable Person |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT REASONABLE PERSON | |
| legal fictions | |
|
RATIONALE BEHIND THE STANDARD The rationale for such a 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 the average person: this is not a democratic measure. To predict the appropriate sense of Responsibility and other standards of the reasonable man, ‘what is reasonable’ has to be appropriate to the issue. What the ‘average person’ thinks or might do is irrelevant to a case concerning Medicine , for example. 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. 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 Jurisdiction s. REASONABLE BYSTANDER A related notion, used in 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 various Feminist and Critical Legal Studies theorists. This has led to the adoption of the term ''reasonable person'' in some jurisdictions. Advocates of the ''reasonable person'' standard defend it as an exercise in approaching objectivity. 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
|
|
|