The Reasonable Person Test Explained
The ‘reasonable person’ test is one of those legal quirks that form an enduring part of the common law, despite being very hard to actually define. And judges in various forms have always had the task of determining if the damage caused was something that the ‘damager’ is liable to remedy. In a way, a bit of retrospective risk assessment has to be carried out by the courts in these cases. Certainly, most torts (the kinds of acts or omissions that cause damage) are caused by pure accidents or mistakes.
Yet it’s never as simple as ‘oh, look, a mistake was made – let’s all move on’. Due to the fact that within law the ‘reasonable person’ has a hypothetical presence in workplaces, schools, homes, streets and venues, it pays to understand the basic ideas and applications embedded within this legal standard. And in the context of workplace risks and potential litigation, it is particularly useful benchmark for employers and managers to keep in mind. Does reasonable mean average? The short answer to this is – no. Using allegory to pin down this tricky concept, judges since the 19th Century have variously named the fictitious reasonable person (then always a man). But the ‘reasonable person’ is actually a little better than the ‘average’ one. He or she will be quite risk-conscious, a little careful with activities, and very thoughtful when it comes to looking out for possible risks and dangers. Yet the courts never endowed our fictitious reasonable person with 20/20 hindsight. In considering whether a person was harmed by the actions or inactions of another, decision-makers will take into account the circumstances and available information that existed at the relevant time. Our reasonable person is certainly quite prudent – but not invincible. The ‘reasonable person’ in the workplaces Risky and unfortunate situations arise