Jump to content

What is the definition of a "reasonable person"?


CHICAGO HANDGUN OWNER

Recommended Posts

I have seen much talk in regards to interpreting laws as being what a "reasonable person" would think or believe. I've never seen the term "reasonable person" defined. Is a reasonable person someone who agrees with the majority of the population? What if half the population believes one way and the other half believes another way? Who are the "reasonable people"? Who decides who is a reasonable person and who is an unreasonable person? If its up to a judge to decide how a reasonable person should interpret a law how does that judge come to a conclusion? Does he take a poll to see how many people believe one way and how many people believe another way? Does he Google it before he lays down his decision? I think "reasonable person" is a very subjective term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definition of legal "reasonable person" is

 

The term refers to an ordinary person who exercises care while avoiding extremes of boldness and carefulness. This term does not apply the same to each as each age group behaves differently.

 

from Black's Legal Dictionary

 

The definition of "reasonable" is

Just, rational, appropriate, ordinary, or usual in the circumstances. It may refer to care, cause, compensation, doubt (in a criminal trial), and a host of other actions or activities.

 

from Black's Legal Dictionary

 

If you would like to do further reading:

 

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2133&context=facpub

 

http://www.lclark.edu/live/files/7230-lcb144art1moranpdf

 

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_law/20130301_at13301_materials.authcheckdam.pdf

 

The above represents a good cross section of the scholarly articles which define "reasonable person". If you were interested in gaining further insight the next level would require investing the time to read some of the judicature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That seems kind of subjective also as then my next question is what is the definition of "ordinary person"

Permit me to offer a suggestion....if you go back to post#2 I have provided you with what would be construed as an authoritative definition of "reasonable person" together with links to a number of sources that delve into the meaning of the term in a significant level of detail. Permit me to suggest that your time might be well spent gaining an understanding of what the courts and knowledgable commentators have said, rather than a collection of amateur "I think I know what it means answers".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard

 

Reasonable Person

 

A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.

 

The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A smart person will ask questions and seek advice. A dumb person will never ask any questions because he's knows everything already.

A smart person will use different sources in an attempt to fill a gap in their knowledge. A dumb person will continue to ask the same question over and over because they are looking for an answer that already fits their understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A smart person will ask questions and seek advice. A dumb person will never ask any questions because he's knows everything already.

A smart person might also undertake the first level search of what is generally available through the research tools which are readily available and review the background information that they are able to find. Once they have completed their review, they are in a position to better formulate questions that will permit those with practical expertise to offer the guidance that can clarify the question. In addition, the answer which is provided by the person will certainly be more meaningful to the person asking the question.

 

I see this in my work almost every day. When a client presents a question that in my case might involve the proper Federal Income Tax treatment of a particular item. When I assign research to one of our associates, I sit down, and explain the background facts in detail, and point out the area of the statute, regulations, and any relevant authority that I am aware of. Then the task of the person doing the research involves original thought and analysis and the development of a conclusion with regard to a proper answer, together with the citations to appropriate authority to support the conclusion. The task of original thought and analysis is substantially more difficult that undertaking a search with Google or another search engine and regurgitating the basic documents such as the statute. It may also involve some digging to find Committee Reports and Legislative history if the matter involves federal law, or more commonly text of the floor debate over the matter if state law is involved.

 

The process is not a simple undertaking and that is merely one part of what an attorney gets paid to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a practical level, just ask me for my opinion since I am the most reasonable person that I know. But in truth you will never find some absolute definition that you can hang your hat on. Reasonableness will vary with geography and time. I would bet that a jury in a remote rural area would have a very different view of what a "reasonable man" would do in regard to gun related issues than would a jury in a densely populated rural area. Just owning a gun, having a concealed carry license, and keeping a loaded firearm available for home defense will seem totally reasonable in many parts of the country whereas in New York City, where I grew up, such behavior would almost certainly be considered unreasonable and likely bizarre. I would defer to a local experienced attorney for a sense of what a "reasonable man" truly means in the context of that locality at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if I know the answer... but I do know how the judge will find the answer:

 

He will select 12 people from the pool of potential jurors and ask them. Their answer will control.

 

My experience has been that far more often than not juries (at least in the counties where I practice) do the right thing.

Actually the description you have provided is NOT correct in either the practical application, nor how the system is supposed to work. A jury is in place to ascertain whether the facts in a particular situation meet the criteria that has been established under the law. The judge is responsible for explaining the law to the jurors such that they would be instructed with respect to the manner in which the law defines a "reasonable man". The jurors would then have the task of determining whether the party in the particular case did or did not act in a manner that met the standard provided under the definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard

 

Reasonable Person

 

A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.

 

The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.

Those that have been through law enforcement training and received training on use of force are held to the "reasonable officer" standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...