This is a common law idea, which asks the question of how a reasonable person would have behaved in circumstances similar to those in which the defendant was presented with at … The so-called reasonable person in the law of negligence is a creation of legal fiction. Required fields are marked *, Healys LLP, Atrium Court, 15-17 Jockey’s Fields, London, WC1R 4QR Everyone is held up to the reasonable person standard, including the victim. The defendant was warned that the haystack was poorly constructed, but ignored this advice. The test of reasonableness is widely used throughout the Act. Therefore, reliance on a judge or jury’s interpretation of facts and application of an objective standard of care is sometimes problematic. Subjectivity gives rise to inconsistency which is not desirable in administering justice. $("a[href$='pdf']").each(function(index) { Our Brighton and London-based partners can help you take your next steps with clarity and conviction. According to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), “what is reasonable depends on the facts of each case, including the likelihood of a known or foreseeable harm, the gravity of that harm, and the burden or cost which would be incurred to prevent the injury. Judges have an innate sense of fairness or may show an instinctive response to facts of a case which may influence a judge to apply a certain degree of conscious or unconscious subjectivity (Irwin at 41). Gerber & Holder Law (Atlanta, Georgia) Healys LLP, Information provided was current as of publication date of issue . Reasonable man theory refers to a test whereby a hypothetical person is used as a legal standard, especially to determine if someone acted with negligence. Wrongful death attorneys Tort law is an umbrella field of law, which aims to correct injustices that have happened between individuals. Services for attorneys In Bolton, a person was hit on the head with a cricket ball while standing on a highway adjoining a cricket ground. Personal Injury Law Firms Directory In Wilde v. The Cambie Malone Corporation, 2008 BCSC 704, a woman was hit on the head by a restaurant’s patio umbrella that was blown toward her by the wind. Yet the courts never endowed our fictitious reasonable person with 20/20 hindsight. If you have instructed a professional person or company to provide you with a service and this service, for reasons under their control, fell below the levels reasonably expected and caused you immediate or potential financial loss we can help you consider your rights. Guaranteed territory protection, Lawyer Directory One controversial issue is whether to hold defendants liable for unintentional torts (negligence) if defendants suffer from a cognitive disability. This is a common law idea, which asks the question of how a reasonable person would have behaved in circumstances similar to those in which the defendant was presented with at the time of the alleged negligence. The standard does not apply if a person is short-sighted, poorly co-ordinated, slow, elderly, or arthritic. Even though defendants might suffer from mental  illness, their conduct is compared to the conduct one would expect from a reasonably careful (and healthy) person. The court found that the cricket club did not breach the reasonable person standard because the risk of damage was so small. Even though the reasonable person test represents an objective standard, it may be applied variously in the sense that “the measure of what is reasonable depends on the facts of each case, including the likelihood of a known or foreseeable harm, the gravity of that harm, and the burden or cost which would be incurred to prevent the injury” (Ryan, para 28). Public Benefits A person must exercise the standard of care that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable and prudent person in the same circumstances to avoid liability; Often, in cases where governmental services are provided, courts consider that an increased risk of injury to an innocent person is justifiable if the services provide direct and necessary benefits to the public. What would those jurors have done under those circumstances? In simple terms, it can be said to be trial by peers or trial by one’s own community – a concept which has common law origins in both criminal and civil law dating back to the 19th century and the Belgian sociologist Adolphe Quetelet’s idea of the l’homme moyen.