B. A hypothetical person used as a legal standard to determine whether someone acted with negligence.
Listen
to pronunciationLegal Definition -
A hypothetical person used as a legal standard to determine whether someone acted with negligence, specifically a person who exercises the degree of attention, knowledge, intelligence and judgment that society requires for the protection of their own and of other's interests. * The reasonable person acts sensibly, does things without serious delay, and takes proper but not excessive precautions. - Also termed reasonable man; prudent person; ordinarily prudent person; reasonably prudent person; highly prudent person.
Black's Law Dictionary® Eighth Edition © 2004
Current Usage -
A few days ago, the jury in the case of the murder of Mir Mujeeb, a foreign businessman brutally murdered by a group of four people, returned a verdict of guilty for defendants Koonjul and Dookee. Both pleaded not guilty and, according to lawyers involved in the case, justice Paul Lam Shang Leen gave instructions to the jury, saying that there seemed not to be much evidence, linking defendant Dookee to the murder. The same was not true for defendant Koonjul. Notwithstanding the judge’s instructions, the jury returned a verdict of guilty for both. Sentencing being the discretion of the judge, justice Lam Shang Leen sentenced Koonjul to 30 years of penal servitude and Dookee got away with a five-year sentence. The "best" jury can, however, sometimes not grasp the directions a judge is striving to give. The “best” jury is also likely to be influenced by public opinion and therefore biased. This goes against the very notion of a “blind” justice, in principle flawless. But there is no such “perfect” justice, says a lawyer. The jury is supposed to represent the famed “reasonable man” against whose standards all things are judged in law. Deepa BHOOKHUN, L'EXPRESS.mu August 4, 2007