reasonable person standard


Also found in: Legal.

reasonable person standard

Reasonable man standard Law & medicine A standard of behavior that is appropriate and expected for a mentally stable or 'reasonable' person under particular circumstances. See Canterbury v Spence, Contributory negligence, Negligence.
References in periodicals archive ?
Canada inherited the reasonable person standard from England in Vaughn v.
in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that although one of the defendants was diagnosed with cerebral palsy and mental retardation, to the extent that she "function [ed] at the cognitive level of a preschooler," she must nonetheless be held to the reasonable person standard.
Formula Balancing, the Reasonable Person Standard, and the Jury, 54
Should the reasonable person standard, understood as paragon of virtue, be applicable in the aforementioned cases, we will arguably conclude that most persons will always come up short insofar as crime is an anomalous action (7).
The data in this Article suggest that applying an accurate reasonable person standard would require the Court to consider carefully the level of granularity at which it describes the reasonable person.
The reasonable person standard is based on the behavior of an average member of the community balancing the costs and benefits of expenditures on care.
This article ultimately concludes that the Missouri Supreme Court's rejection of the reasonable person standard in Burns is unreasonable because not only is it unjust toward employees who unintentionally cause injury to fellow employees, but it also conflicts with the underlying purpose of Missouri's workers' compensation law.
2003-61 also implies that a reasonable person standard will apply as under Sec.
Recent legal scholarship, however, reveals a growing movement to transform the objective assessment of certain defenses into a more subjective one by reformulating the reasonable person standard in criminal law.
The court reasoned that because it is "now firmly established legal principle that 'juvenile defendants are, in general, more susceptible to police coercion than adults'" and thus a "reasonable-juvenile standard" is now applied to a determination of whether an interrogation of a juvenile is custodial, a similar modification of the reasonable person standard should apply when mentally retarded defendants are involved.