While the use of the reasonable women standard has gained traction in some areas of law, the standard has not escaped the crosshairs of comedians. In 1924, legal humorist A. P. Herbert dealt extensively with the concept of the reasonable man in the fictional case “Fardell v. Potts.” In Herbert`s mock report, the judge addressed the lack of a reasonable standard for women at common law, ultimately concluding that “there is no such thing as a reasonable woman.” [48] Under United States common law, a well-known, albeit non-binding, test for determining how a reasonable person could weigh the above criteria was established in 1947 by the Chief Justice of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Learned Hand. The case involved a barge that broke its anchorage at the wharf. Hand wrote for the court: In cases where a human actor uses professional skill, the “reasonable person in the circumstances” test is raised to a standard of whether the person acted as a “reasonable professional would have done in the circumstances,” regardless of whether that actor is actually a professional. and regardless of the level of education or experience of that particular actor. [29] Other factors also come into play, such as the level of training of the professional (i.e. whether he is a specialist in the relevant field or only a general practitioner in the profession) and the usual practices and general procedures of similar professionals. However, these other relevant factors are never determinative. But these were things that were so obvious to him that he couldn`t imagine a reasonable person who doubted them. The English jurist Percy Henry Winfield summarized much of the literature by noting that the reasonable person standard ignores the mentally ill.
[28] Such a refusal goes back to the standard set out in Menlove, where counsel for Menlove argued in favour of the subjective standard. In the 170 years since, the law has respected the legal judgment of having only one objective standard. Such judicial compliance sends the message that the mentally ill would be better off refraining from risk-creating measures unless they exercise increased levels of self-control and precaution if they intend to evade responsibility. Note: A police officer who stops a person must be able to report certain facts or circumstances, even if the suspicion does not have to live up to the belief supported by a probable reason. A reasonable suspicion is more than a guess. That it is reasonable and appropriate to ask our statesmen and politicians: what will happen to the world? The standard is also used in contract law[12] to determine contractual intent or (where there is due diligence) whether there has been a breach of the standard of due diligence. The intention of a party may be established by reviewing the agreement of a reasonable person, after considering all the relevant circumstances of the case, including negotiations, all practices that the parties have established between them, customs and subsequent conduct of the parties. [13] If a person engages in a competency-based activity that poses a risk to others, they will be required to meet the minimum standard as a reasonable person experienced in that task,[34] regardless of their actual level of experience. [27] [35] The article undertakes to describe the main differences between concepts such as the well-founded presumption of the commission of a criminal offence, reasonable suspicion of the commission of a criminal offence and the reasonable elements of the presumption of the commission of a criminal offence on the basis of Polish law of criminal procedure. The article also deals with the relationship with the linguistic interpretation of the law, certain legal articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the secret police. Some examples of the use of the above terms and their consequences, as well as the relationships between them, are also highlighted. In some circumstances, human actors face the problem of only getting by with what is available.
Such circumstances are relevant to determining whether the defendant acted reasonably. Where resources are scarce, some measures may be appropriate that would be inappropriate if the same funds were available and readily available or realistically in other circumstances. While the legal fiction[3] of the rational person represents the ideal human actor, it would be difficult to characterize an individual human being to meet the norm, 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 as “a reasonable person in the circumstances” would, as if their limits were themselves circumstances. Therefore, the courts require that it be presumed that the reasonable person is subject to the same restrictions as the defendant. The reasonable person has been described as an “excellent but abominable character”. [19] The implementation of such measures presupposes that the reasonable person is reasonably informed, capable, lawful and honest. Such a person can do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but whatever they do or think, it is always reasonable. Kary i inne środki reakcji prawnokarnej, red. Mr Melezini, www.sip.legalis.pl (21.10.2016). Two years later, the “reasonable person” first appeared in the English case of Vaughan v. Menlove (1837).
[15] In Menlove, the respondent had stacked hay on his rental property in a manner prone to spontaneous ignition. After being warned repeatedly for five weeks, the hay ignited and burned the defendant`s barns and barn, then spread to the owner`s two cabins on the adjacent property. Menlove`s lawyer admitted his client`s “misfortune” of not possessing the greatest intelligence, arguing that negligence should only be established if the jury decided that Menlove had not acted “in good faith [and] to the best of his knowledge.” Expectations, whether reasonable or unrealistic, remain so even if we impose them on ourselves. Few people, I think, recognize this, let alone realize the reasonable consequences. The reasonable person belongs to a family of hypothetical figures in law, including: the “righteous member of society”, the “official spectator”, the “reasonable parent”, the “reasonable owner”, the “just and informed observer”, the “person with ordinary competence in the field” in patent law, and to return to the Roman jurists, the figure of the bonus paterfamilias[1], which are all used, set legal standards. Although there is a vague consensus in the Black Letter Act, there is no accepted technical definition. Like legal fiction in general, it is somewhat susceptible to manipulation or transformation on an ad hoc basis and, therefore, “reasonable person” is an emerging common law concept. [3] The “reasonable person” is used as a tool to standardize, teach or explain the law to a jury. [2] Since it is objectively assumed that a reasonable person knows the law, failure to comply with local safety legislation may also constitute negligence. The related doctrine of negligence itself addresses the circumstances in which the law of negligence may become an implied cause of action for breach of a standard of legal care. Conversely, minimal compliance with a safety statute does not always release a defendant if the trial judge finds that the reasonable person should have taken steps beyond what the law requires. [40] However, if the trial judge finds that the standard of law itself is reasonable and that the defendant acted in accordance with the law, the duty of care may be considered satisfied.
[41] [42] [43] In applying the reasonable person standard, courts instead use an objective instrument and avoid such subjective assessments. The result is a standard that allows the law to behave in a uniform, predictable and neutral manner when it comes to determining liability. In 1835, Adolphe Quetelet described the characteristics of the average man (French, “average man”). His work has been translated into English in various 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 to act in society. [14] The “competent officer” standard is a method commonly used by law enforcement and other armed professions to determine whether a use of force has been used correctly.