|
Central to the negligence law is the reasonable person’s standard. However, there is no universally accepted definition of what is reasonable or what is not. Negligence arises out of a person’s non observance of standards of “reasonable” behaviour, established by law, causing risk or harm to others. Under negligence law, the plaintiff must show that the defendant, as a reasonable person, had a duty towards the plaintiff to act in a certain way and that the defendant has actually breached that duty. The plaintiff must also show that the defendant’s negligent conduct in fact caused harm to the plaintiff. What is reasonable behaviour, however, may depend much on the circumstances. There is no universally accepted definition as to what amounts to “reasonable” behaviour. “Reasonable person” is the objective test used in negligence law to determine how far the defendant has departed from the expected standards of behaviour. A reasonable person may not necessarily be an average person or a typical person always, but he is a composite of the community’s judgment as to how an ordinary person would act in the given situation. A reasonable person may be adequately informed of the surrounding facts, related law and other matters, which will allow him to take a considered decision. He will be fair-minded and will exhibit all the good qualities the community in which he lives in expects from its members. On the other hand, the reasonable person standard is not the same in every case, as it can vary from one situation to another, depending on the community to which it is applied. A person acting reasonably may consider the foreseeable risk of harm his or her actions would create and the extent of such risk. He may also consider whether the risk will actually cause the harm and what are the alternatives which can be used to avoid the risk. Apart from Negligence law, the reasonable person’s standard is widely used in law of contract, criminal law as well as in various other areas of law.
|
We Speak Your Language
|