|
''For reasonable person in psychology, see Reasonable Person Model'' In law, a reasonable person (historically reasonable man) is a composite of a relevant community's judgment as to how a typical member of said community should behave in situations that might pose a threat of harm (through action or inaction) to the public. The term is used to explain the law to a jury. The "reasonable person" is an emergent concept of common law. While there is loose consensus in black letter law, there is no accepted technical definition. As a legal fiction,〔 the "reasonable person" is not an average person or a typical person, leading to great difficulties in applying the concept in some criminal cases, especially in regards to the partial defence of provocation. The standard also holds that each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances.〔Franklin, at 54〕 While the specific circumstances of each case will require varying kinds of conduct and degrees of care, the reasonable person standard undergoes no variation itself.〔Franklin, at 55〕 The "reasonable person" construct can be found applied in many areas of the law. The standard performs a crucial role in determining negligence in both criminal law—that is, criminal negligence—and tort law. The standard also has a presence in contract law, though its use there is substantially different.〔For the use in transnational contract law: (Trans-Lex.org )〕 It is used to determine contractual intent, or if a breach of the standard of care has occurred, provided a duty of care can be proven. The intent of a party can be determined by examining the understanding of a reasonable person, after consideration is given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the negotiations, any practices the parties have established between themselves, usages and any subsequent conduct of the parties.〔(Determining the Contractual Intent of Parties under the CISG and Common Law -- A Comparative Analysis, European Journal of Law Reform (Kluwer) Vol. 4, No. 4 (2002) 629-643, by Bruno Zeller, 2002, last updated, June 30, 2006 )〕 The standard does not exist independently of other circumstances within a case that could affect an individual's judgment. ==History== In 1835, Adolphe Quetelet detailed the characteristics of l'homme moyen. His work is translated into English several ways. As a result, some authors pick "average man", "common man", "reasonable man", orstick to the original "l'homme moyen". Quetelet was a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician and sociologist. He documented the physical characteristics of man on a statistical basis and discussed man's motivations when acting in society.〔(On Man, and the development of his faculties, The Athenæm, by A. Quetelet, Secretary to the Royal Academy of Brussels. London: Bossange & Co pp. 593-594, August 8 1835 )〕 Two years later, the "reasonable person" made his first appearance in the English case of ''Vaughan v. Menlove'' (1837). In ''Menlove'', the defendant had stacked hay on his rental property in a manner prone to spontaneous ignition. After he had been repeatedly warned over the course of five weeks, the hay ignited and burned the defendant's barns and stable, and then spread to the landlord's two cottages on the adjacent property. Menlove's attorney admitted his client's "misfortune of not possessing the highest order of intelligence," arguing that negligence should only be found if the jury decided Menlove had not acted with "''bona fide'' () to the best of his () judgment." The ''Menlove'' court disagreed, reasoning that such a standard would be too subjective, instead preferring to set an objective standard for adjudicating cases: English courts upheld the standard again nearly 20 years later in ''Blyth v. Company Proprietors of the Birmingham Water Works,'' holding: 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「reasonable person」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|