...CANADIAN BUSINESS LAW “REASONABLE PERSON” Assignment # 2 GBMP 511-02 Dated: 18-04-2012 REASONABLE PERSON Question: What is the concept of “Reasonable Person” mean? What is the test that determines whether someone has met that test in law? The Concept: A Reasonable person is a hypothetical person who exercises qualities of attention, knowledge, intelligence, and judgment that society requires of its members for the protection of their own interest and the interests of others. Defining "Reasonable" Being "reasonable" means having the faculty of reason, acting rationally governed by reason. The behavior can be called "reasonable" if the activities can be valued as fair, just, or equitable. The person must be honest, moderate, sane, sensible, and tolerable. "Reasonable" implies a certain standard of valuation. It is a standard for guiding conduct. Reasonable Person This phrase is a personification of the description of "reasonable". Thus, the "reasonable man or person" can be understood as a phrase used to denote a suppositional person who exercises those mentioned qualities which society demands as stated above. Applying the Reasonable Person Standard: The reasonable person does not always appear in the Process of evaluating human behavior. There are several judicial patterns demanding a judgment of reasonableness without expressly mentioning the reasonable man as a personification, such as: reasonable aids, care, diligence, doubt, compensation, (market) value...
Words: 4082 - Pages: 17
...does not necessarily need to be an illegal action but an action that has consequently caused harm or suffering to another. The main outcome for a person claiming they have been a victim of a tortious act is compensation. For a successful tort claim the three main elements need to be present and their needs to be a standard of proof; a balance of probabilities. The Necessary Elements As followed in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 i. Duty of Care ii. Breach of Duty iii. Damage caused by Breach of Duty. Causation This coincides with the three part test established in case that leads precedent in tortious liability, Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568. i. Foreseeability of Damage ii. A relationship characterised by the law as one of proximity or neighbourhood. iii. A relationship characterised by the law as one of proximity or neighbourhood Duty of Care Duty of care prior to 1932 was restricted to situations where a relationship had already been established such as a doctor-patient relationship. However in Donoghue v Stevenson that duty of care became adapted. Lord Atkin formulated a principle known as the ‘neighbour test’; ‘take reasonable care to avoid act or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour’ This meant that the tortfeasor must foresee how their actions could possibly affect the claimant and to avoid doing so. He continued to define ‘neighbours ‘as; “ persons who are so closely and directly affected...
Words: 1639 - Pages: 7
...Critically Evaluate the Law in the areas of Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter and include the consideration of possible reforms. Homicide, in English criminal law is a generic term covering offences such as murder, manslaughter and death by dangerous driving. What they all have in common is the unlawful killing of a human being, and what distinguishes them is the state of mind of the defendant who has caused the death or the defences available to them. According to Coke's classic definition, Murder is when a man of sound memory and of an age of discretion unlawfully killed within the any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura (the person) under the King's peace with malice afore thought either expressed by the party or implied by law. [So as the party wounded etc die of the wound or hurt, etc within a year and a day of the same]. Coke's definition should not be read literally and it is neither accurate or helpful. For instance, any person can be found guilty of murder and the year and a day rule was abolished by S1 law Reform Act 1996. The reference to 'malice afore thought' this suggests some element of planning and ill will on the part of the murder when in truth it can be spontaneous and the law requires no evidence of ill will. From the outset it should be started that a few centuries of Jurisprudence and the odd statutory intervention such fundamental terms as causation & intention let alone when does life begin and end should have been well matured...
Words: 3343 - Pages: 14
...As far as determining negligence is considered, courts have to depend on the advice of experts, except in cases of blatant violation of protocol and doing things which are considered to be unreasonable and imprudent. The law on the subject needs to be more precise and certain. That will surely give a better understanding about the “reasonable man”.In other words the doctor, does not have to adhere to the highest or sink to the lowest degree of care and competence in the light of the circumstance. He does not have to ensure that every patient who comes to him is cured. He has to only ensure that he confers a reasonable degree of care and competence. To err is human but who will own...
Words: 2957 - Pages: 12
...Reasonable Person Definition In the text “an overview of tort law” in Unit 6, several paragraphs are devoted to discussion on this standard. In fact, reasonable person standard is applied as a useful tool widely in both tort law and criminal law and sometimes even contract law. This explains why I believe that it is high time that we discuss this standard now since we covered criminal law in the last semester and have just finished learning its part in contract law and tort law. 定义： For instance, when there is a difference between the contracting parties in the understanding of a contract, RPS will be applied. The judge shall not decide subjectively which party’s understanding of the contract is right. Instead, he should determine the right version by adopting the conclusion which will be drawn by a reasonable person on that disputed contract. 意义： When it comes to determine whether an accused is liable for a given offence, his or her conduct will be compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. 首案： Trial stated the defendant "was [duty] bound to proceed with such reasonable caution as a prudent man would have exercised under such circumstances." Appeal arguing the jury should have instead been instructed to consider "whether he acted bona fide to the best of his judgment; if he had, he ought not to be responsible for the misfortune of not possessing the highest order of intelligence." The court, composed of Tindal CJ, Park J and Vaughan J, rejected...
Words: 449 - Pages: 2
...Aspects of Contract and Negligence for Business Faculty: Md. Ashiqur Rahman Bhuiyan Head, School of Business, BAC Learning Outcome 3 & 4 ------------------------------------------------- Name: Orbind Bhakta ------------------------------------------------- ID: 2013121024 SOUTHERN AUTOMOBILES LIMITED SOUTHERN AUTOMOBILES LIMITED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to acknowledge all the help from Southern Automobiles Limited especially Mr. Manoranjan Bhakta FCA (Managing Director) who gave me all possible important information and helped me with the actual contracts and scenarios of the business. I would also like to thank my respective course teacher Md. Ashiqur Rahman Bhuiyan for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement throughout the whole semester. Lastly I would like thank my respective parents, siblings, friends and colleagues to support and helped me to successfully complete full assignment . Table of Contents Contents TORT: 3 Intentional Tort: 3 Strict Liability: 3 Negligence: 4 Duty of care: 4 Breach of Duty: 5 Causation: 6 Vicarious Liability: 8 Reference: 12 LO 3 Understanding the principles of liability in negligence in business activities. TORT: The liability of the violation of a fixed law, law arises primarily; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is capable of redress by action unliquidated damages. This is a civil wrong, in the sense that...
Words: 2880 - Pages: 12
... • Forseeability (any considerations that ought to reduce the scope of duty of care) • Whether is all circumstances it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. Duty of Care? 1. Was the defendant careless/negligent? 2. Did he act like a reasonable man? 3. What did he omit to do? • Where D should have interceded for P protection e.g. motorist's duty to control passengers so that they do not cause injury to other road users. • Where D omitted to observe the rules of the road 4. Does a duty of care exist? • We have to ask ourselves is a duty of care owed to the person who we can reasonably foresee will be injured by our acts or omissions. • Duty of Care not only applies to acts and omissions but also to words/statements • A duty could arise that due to a careless statement it leads to economic loss. • e.g a special relationship of trust and advice in a professional capacity • Plantiff (Prosecutor....claim damages) • Defendant (person who caused the damage or acted careless/wrongdoer) • Hedley Byrne V Heller & Partners(1974) • P relied on D skill and judgement • D should know P is relying on him • This is a reasonable to think that D should rely on P. Breach of that duty • What is the probability of the accident? • the greater the probability...
Words: 793 - Pages: 4
...IRAC Method of Bell vs. Greenbrier Nursing and Rehabilitation Center Shaquita Spruill Business Law (LAW/531) Michael Meeusen September 2, 2013 IRAC Method of Bell vs. Greenbrier Nursing and Rehabilitation Center Case: Martha Bull, 76, who died at the Greenbrier Nursing and Rehabilitation Center April 7, 2008 after staff failed to act on a doctor's orders to get her transferred to a hospital emergency room for treatment of severe abdominal pain. Issue: Has negligence been demonstrated? Rule: Negligence requires that a duty was owed, that the duty was breached, and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of damage. Analysis: Greenbrier Nursing and Rehabilitation Center owed a duty of care to Bell which was to get her to a hospital. Greenbrier Nursing and Rehabilitation Center breeched their duty of care by not following through with the doctors’ orders. The breech of this duty caused injury to Bell which was death. Greenbrier Nursing Center is the proximate cause of negligence which means the negligent party is not necessarily liable for all damages set in motion by his or her negligent. Conclusion: According to "Arkansas Times" (2013), the jury found the nursing home guilty of negligence, medical malpractice and violation of resident's rights, but it did not specifically find that the nursing home caused Bull's death. New legislation from the 2013 legislation, sponsored by Sen. Jonathan Dismang, will make it impossible to sue a nursing home except for...
Words: 1069 - Pages: 5
...replaced with the state administered workers compensation systems. In order for a plaintiff to utilize the law of torts certain elements need to be present so that a reasonable measure of success can be ensured in the outcome. Elements of Negligent Tort Negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or doing something, which a prudent, and reasonable, man would not do’ The essential elements of negligent tort are 1) Duty of reasonable care, 2) Breach of duty of care, 3) Breach was actual, and proximate cause of injury .Tort is what is in the tort books but only thing holding it together is their binding’, hence to win a negligence case, plaintiff must prove each of three elements. Duty of reasonable care: According to Negligence law, normally members of society should behave in ways that avoid the creation of unreasonable risks of harms to others. The standard for assessing such conduct is called µreasonable care standard and in most cases the duty to exercise reasonable care, serves as the relevant duty for the purpose of a negligence claim’s first element . Breach of duty: This is the second element of negligent tort, which requires plaintiff to establish that defendant failed to act as a reasonable person would have acted, thus negligent law’s focus on...
Words: 1336 - Pages: 6
...the death of the defendant In the case of Lamb there was no initial crime as they believed a bullet could only be fired when it was in the chamber opposite the guns hammer so neither expected it to fire In this case the unlawful act was speeding up and driving directly at Kim making her fear force. As well as fearing unlawful force the initial crime must be dangerous to establish whether it was dangerous the objective test is used, this is whether a reasonable person would recognize the act could at least cause some harm to the victim. In Dawson the defendant attempted to rob a garage wearing a mask and carrying a fake gun and a pick axe handle, the 60 year old V had a heart attack shortly after but because the cause was unknown the defendant wasn’t guilty, whereas in RvWatson the defendant burgled the house of a very frail 87 year old, he died of a heart attack, it would be obvious to a reasonable person that a man in his condition would be vulnerable to shock. In this case Harry driving at speed towards Kim was dangerous a reasonable person would recognise the risk of driving at someone at speed. . It must be an act an omission is not sufficient, In RvLowe he neglected his child and as this is an omission so therefore he wasn’t guilty of unlawful act manslaughter. Lastly the defendant’s unlawful act must cause the victim’s death, in RvWatson the prosecution couldn’t prove that the heart attack was brought on by the shock of the attempted robbery. In this case ‘but for’ Harry driving...
Words: 935 - Pages: 4
...Legal Concept(s) Negligence: Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances. In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of TORTS, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Negligence Under the doctrine of unintentional tort, commonly referred to as negligence, a person is liable for harm that is the foreseeable consequence of his or her actions. Negligence is defined as “the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.” Cheeseman, Henry. Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues, 7th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions. VitalBook file. To be successful in a negligence lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant breached this duty of care, (3) the plaintiff suffered injury, (4) the defendant’s negligent act caused the plaintiff...
Words: 287 - Pages: 2
...questioning, the Police must have a reasonable suspicion that the person is about to commit or has already committed a crime. If after someone has been stopped, the police want frisk a suspect for weapons, they need to have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and threatening. The Court recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person. At the same time, it recognized that in certain circumstances, public safety might require a limited "seizure," or stop, of an individual against his will. The Court consequently set forth conditions circumscribing when and how the police might conduct a Terry stop. They include what has become known as the "reasonable suspicion" standard. 392 U. S., at 20-22. Justice White, in a separate concurring opinion, set forth further conditions. Justice White wrote: "Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." Id., at 34. After Terry v. Ohio case, police officers only needed reasonable suspicion to search a person for weapons. However, the search is strictly limited to weapons. The case did not do much to change law enforcement or policing. It did, however, codify law enforcement officer's rights to self-protection during citizen 'contacts or stops for "reasonable suspicion" only. Police are entitled...
Words: 1027 - Pages: 5
...the belief of God based on other reasons and factors rather than just believing in God for a basis of our religious beliefs, then where does the Christian philosopher fit in? As a theist we are to move away from the point of proving Gods existence and rather explain why we hold to the theist view. Relating to Forman’s presentation, the best explanation approach is the best possible way to combat this view that the proofs should be abandoned. Although we may not be able to fully establish the case for the existence of God, we are able to give reasons to believe in the God of the Universe. The amount of proof that is necessary for McCloskey to form a belief of atheism, should be examined because like theism, it can not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The explanation of the beliefs of theism is most likely the best explanation as to why a God exists. Although there is many explanations as to Gods existence, the best way to combat the proof aspect of forming a belief is to simply offer the best explanation. On the aspect of the cosmological argument, McCloskey pushed the issue that the argument in itself was an “argument from the existence of the world, as we know it.” He also pushed that it was not an argument from the existence of something. His underlying point is that since the world exists there is...
Words: 1687 - Pages: 7
...showed a fear of violence) The two tests * The subjective test and the objective test * Subjective test – D must be shown to have actually lost his self-control. If there is evidence that his actions were premeditated, or that he had been able to compose himself between the provocation and the killing, then the evidence cannot be left to the jury. * The objective test: Having decided that the defendant was provoked. The jury must decide whether a responsible man would have acted as the defendant did. In the language of statue “The question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did …taking into account everything both done and said according to the effect…it would have an a reasonable man” * Broken down, this objective ingredient has two elements. The first element calls for an assessment of the gravity if the provocation. The second is element calls for application of an external standard of self-control: whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did. Self-Control * So the jury has to decide whether the defendant has been provoked by things said...
Words: 1065 - Pages: 5
...the existence of a theistic God are made up of a series of proofs, none of which can be definitively proven. In fact, he is dismissive of such proofs, contending that “most theists do not come to believe in God as a result of reflecting on the proofs, but come to religion as a result of other reasons and factors.”1 While this statement is most likely true, it is erroneous to dismiss the theist’s belief on the basis of its origins. In doing so, McCloskey commits the fallacy of genetics. At the outset, McCloskey demands that the teleological and cosmological arguments provide definitive proof of God’s existence; failing this, they should be abandoned. This is an unreasonable standard, as most things can only be proven to be reasonably true, and it is commonly accepted that one’s beliefs only need be reasonable in order to have validity. According to Woodhouse, “the choice between...
Words: 3927 - Pages: 16
