I loven, er en fornuftig person, fornuftig mand, eller the man on the Clapham omnibus er en hypotetisk person af retslige fiktion fremstillet af retterne, og formidles gennem retspraksis og retsbelæring.
I nøje overensstemmelse med den fiktion, er det en misforståelse for en part at søge dokumentation fra de rigtige mennesker, med henblik på at fastlægge, hvordan en fornuftig mand ville have gjort, eller hvad han ville have forudset. Denne persons karakter og pleje falder under eventuelle fælles sæt af fakta, som er besluttet gennem argumentation for god praksis eller politik — eller "lært" såfremt der ikke er en overbevisende konsensus i den offentlige mening — ved landsretterne.
Referencer[redigér | redigér wikikode]
- "Healthcare at Home Limited v. The Common Services Agency,  UKSC 49" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. 30. juli 2014.
It follows from the nature of the reasonable man, as a means of describing a standard applied by the court, that it would be misconceived for a party to seek to lead evidence from actual passengers [i.e. "the right-thinking member of society," "the officious bystander," "the reasonable parent," "the reasonable landlord," "the fair-minded and informed observer,"...] on the Clapham omnibus as to how they would have acted in a given situation or what they would have foreseen, in order to establish how the reasonable man would have acted or what he would have foreseen. Even if the party offered to prove that his witnesses were reasonable men, the evidence would be beside the point. The behaviour of the reasonable man is not established by the evidence of witnesses, but by the application of a legal standard by the court. The court may require to be informed by evidence of circumstances which bear on its application of the standard of the reasonable man in any particular case; but it is then for the court to determine the outcome, in those circumstances, of applying that impersonal standard.
- Regina v Smith, 4 AER 289 . “[sub-citing Camplin and Bedder:] the concept of the "reasonable man" has never been more than a way of explaining the law to a jury; an anthropomorphic image to convey to them, with a suitable degree of vividness, the legal principle that even under provocation, people must conform to an objective standard of behaviour that society is entitled to expect”
- Bedder v Director of Public Prosecutions, 1 WLR 1119 . “[where reasonable man is deemed a wholly impersonal fiction to which no special characteristic of the accused should be attributed]”
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (31. oktober 1927). "Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66". United States Reports. Supreme Court of the United States. 275: 66.
In an action for negligence, the question of due care is not left to the jury when resolved by a clear standard of conduct which should be laid down by the courts.
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1881). "Lecture III—D. Liability for unintended Harm is determined by what would be Blameworthy in Average man". The Common Law. Little, Brown and Company. s. 108, 122–123. "[Page 108] The standards of the law are standards of general application. The law takes no account of the infinite varieties of temperament, intellect, and education which make the internal character of a given act so different in different men ... [Page 122] the averment that the defendant has been guilty of negligence ... that his alleged conduct does not come up to the legal standard. ... the question whether the court or the jury ought to judge of the defendant's conduct is wholly unaffected by the accident, ... it is entirely possible to give a series of hypothetical instructions adapted to every state of facts which it is open to the jury to find. ... the court may still take their opinion as to the standard. ... [page 123] ...supposing a state of facts often repeated in practice, is it to be imagined that the court is to go on leaving the standard to the jury forever? ... if the jury is, on the whole, as fair a tribunal as it is represented to be, the lesson which can be got from that source will be learned.... the court will find ... the conduct complained of usually is or is not blameworthy, ... or it will find the jury oscillating to and fro, and will see the necessity of making up its mind for itself. There is no reason why any other such question should not be settled, as well as that of liability for stairs with smooth strips of brass upon their edges..."