The fact that an action was deemed necessary does not mean that the resulting action was reasonable (R/Clegg 1995 1 AC 482 HL). If it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself or herself against violence, the extent to which the measures taken were necessary is, of course, an integral part of the adequacy of the force used. In some practices, in circumstances arising from an unusual set of facts,[5] this person is considered to be the composition of a relevant community`s judgment of how a typical member of that community should behave in situations that could pose a risk of harm (by acting or not acting) to the public. [6] Cases that led to a verdict despite the verdict, such as Liebeck v. McDonald`s restaurants, however, may be examples where the composite verdict of a revised jury was found to be outside the verdict of the actual fictitious reasonable person and was therefore rejected. Furthermore, in Mansfield v. Weetabix Ltd,[32] Justice Leggatt addressed the objective approach and noted that the defendant`s action was compared to that of a reasonably competent driver who did not know that he had suffered from a hypoglycemic condition. Furthermore, in Condor v. Basi[45] and Watson v. Gray[46] in sports, if he is a participant, the defendant must exercise due diligence to play in accordance with the rule specified in the game. Even in the game of horses, there will be no violation that causes harm to the plaintiff (Blake v. Galloway).[47] In Latimer v.
AEC Ltd[48] states to Lord Porter that it is its duty to determine what action a reasonable person would have taken in circumstances where no one else slipped or even acknowledged that there was a reasonable risk of doing so. Even the safety engineer did not explain that more action should have been taken than taken, except to close all work, which is not possible. It is therefore an exceptional approach and the Court used a subjective approach (Smith v. Littlewoods Ltd).[49] [50] Returning to our starting point, “the interpretation of a contract always determines the meaning that a contractual document would give to a reasonable person,” as noted in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society (1997). Although modern jurisprudence identifies the reasonable person as the person who “possesses all the basic knowledge that would have been available to the parties in the situation in which they found themselves at the time of entering into the contract”, likewise, in Chartbrook Ltd v. Persimmon Homes Ltd (2009), such a reasonable person may view a contract from a multidimensional perspective. as in Arnold v Britten (2015), a case based on a specific sub-clause contained in 25 leases. Reasonableness in the interpretation of the contract includes 1.) examination of the natural and ordinary meaning of a term; 2.) taking into account other relevant provisions of the rental agreement; 3.) review of the entire clause and lease agreement; 4.) taking into account the facts and circumstances known or assumed by the parties when executing their document; 5.) Application of common business sense and 6.) Consideration of subjective evidence of a party`s intent. Under U.S. common law, in 1947, the Chief Justice of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Learned Hand, established a known, albeit non-binding, test for determining how a reasonable person could weigh the criteria listed above. [22] In 1947, by the Chief Justice of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The case involved a barge that broke its anchorage at the wharf. Hand wrote for the court: Prosecutors must exercise particular caution when considering cases involving non-police officers who may have a duty to maintain order and prevent crime. These include private security guards (including club bouncers), innkeepers and public transport employees. The existence of duties requiring persons to engage from time to time in confrontational situations in the course of their employment must be taken into account, as must the usual principles of appropriate force. In the field of health care, applicants must demonstrate, by means of expert opinions, the standard of medical care due and a deviation from this standard. The only exception to the requirement of an expert opinion is when the deviation from accepted medical practice was so glaring that a layman can easily recognize the deviation. [31] The rational man has been described as an “excellent but despicable character.” [19] Children are the exception to the “reasonable person” standard because they are generally not expected to behave in the same way as an adult.