This document provides an introduction and overview of a student project on the role of the reasonable man in tort law. It contains the following key points: 1. The reasonable man standard represents an objective test used to determine if a person has met their duty of care. It asks how a hypothetical ordinary prudent person would act in the same situation. 2. The standard first emerged in the 1837 case Vaughan v. Menlove and has since been applied and developed in numerous tort law cases over the years. 3. The rationale for the reasonable man standard is to impart justice when evaluating negligence and allow people to peacefully coexist in society by outlining duties of care. It prevents finding liability for harms

1. PROJECT WORK ON THE LAW OF
TORTS
ROLE OF A REASONABLE MAN IN
THE LAW OF TORTS
GUIDED BY:- AMARENDRA KUMAR AJIT,
Assistant Professor of Law,
National Law University, Orissa,
Cuttack.
Submitted by:-
Manisha Das (Roll No. 28)
Naman Singh Bagga (Roll No.-29)
Nandini Tiwari (Roll No.-30)

2. CONTENTS
1. Introduction.
2.Research Methodology.
3.Table of cases.
4.Applications Of The Rule of
Reasonableness.
5. Applications Of the rule of Reasonableness
in The Law of Tort.
6. Exceptions to The rule of Reasonableness.
7. Conclusion And Suggestions.

3. INTRODUCTION
REASONABLE MAN:- It is a legal fiction created by the “Common law” which represents a
standard against which the conduct of a human is measured. Where ever there is duty of care the
person who is in the breach of such a duty is judged on the parameters of the said standard as it
provides the “standard of the duty of care”. This is done by supposing that a hypothetical or
fictional person with an ordinary degree of prudence, reason, foresight or intelligence whose
conduct, conclusion, or expectation in relation to a particular situation or circumstance or fact is
used as an objective standard to measure or evaluate whether the person who is in the breach of
the duty of care is in the breach of such a duty because of the compelling nature of the
circumstances or if it is not reasonably foreseeable or whether it is because of the negligence or
the wrong conduct of the person alleged for the wrong.
HISTORY BEHIND THE EVOLUTION OF THE REASONABLE MAN STANDARD:-
This standard first came into the light in the case Vaughan v. Menlove1
where the defendant had
stacked hay over the rental property rented to him by the plaintiff in a manner prone to
spontaneous ignition and after several warnings also the defendant didn’t keep it aside and hence
causing the fire to ignite the landlord’s cottages on the adjacent land. Here the court applied the
reasonable man test and held the plaintiff liable for damages as the reasonable man with ordinary
prudence could have easily foreseen the damages that might have arisen out of the negligently
keeping the hay vulnerable to ignition.
But the standard was actually left behind as there has always been a turmoil between adoption of
the reasonable man standard of care test or the directness test and the directness test was applied
in the Re Polemis case2
. According to the directness test the plaintiff would be liable for all the
1
132 ER 490
2
[1921] 3 K.B. 560

4. direct consequences of his act and as this was not in accordance with the principles which say
that the judgment should always be fair, just and equitable so the Court of Appeal in the Wagon
Mound case3
again brought back or revived the reasonable foreseeability test. This judgment was
the one which exempted the charterparty in the case of the liability for the unforeseeable
consequences flowing from the act and rightly so.
RATIONALE BEHIND THE PRINCIPLE OF REASONABLENESS:-
The reasonable man standard was brought in light to impart justice in the situation of negligence
and to maintain the peaceful coexistence of people in the society possible. As was declared in the
case Donoghue v. Stevenson4
that the each and every person owes a duty of care to his
neighbours. Now to determine the standard of the duty of care these principles were brought in.
Moreover in the scenario where the wrongdoer is alleged for the harm he could not have foreseen
and it would be unjust to the defendant to make him pay compensation to the plaintiff for the
harm he could not have foreseen in any circumstance.
So these were the logics and reasoning behind the evolution of the standard of care of a
reasonable man.
REASONABLENESS AND LAW:- Today there are many judgments where this standard has
proven very important and furthermore it has not only contributed in the tort law rather it has had
its appearances in various fields at different times in different forms. The standard has not only
come in light in torts rather it has also appeared in criminal law, contract law and also other
emerging torts like Domestic Violence. This would be dealt in detail in the first chapter on the
application of the principle of reasonableness.
REASONABLENESS: A STANDARD OF CARE:-
This standard of care has different meanings in different contexts:
3
[1961] A.C. 388
4
[1932] A.C. 502

5. 1. As in the case of negligence it would mean that a person committing or omitting any act
which a reasonable man would have not done or done then, the person would be liable for
such an act or omission. But the application of the principle in a court room might differ
from judge to judge as the perception of each judge relating to the standard of
reasonableness might differ from judge to judge.
2. As in the case of the law of crimes or to say the basic necessity comes in determining the
reasonable force necessary at the time of self-defense is taken into account.
3. As in the case of the law of contracts the term comes in the recognition whether there was
a misrepresentation or the fact could have been perceived the be implicitly known to the
plaintiff under the circumstances mentioned or under which the deal or the contract was
signed.
4. As in the case of the Domestic violence the reasonable man standard is seen in the pretext
of the battered woman syndrome or to say that the standard in the law of self-defense is
seen by keeping in mind the condition of the battered woman.
SITUATIONS IN THE LAW OF TORTS WHERE THE REASONABLE STANDARD
DOES NOT APPLY:-
There are many cases where the standard of care is not applicable. These are some of the
examples.eg:- Vicarious Liability,concurrent liabilities,Liability to third parties,Strict liability,
Product liability etc.
These will be dealt with in detail in the third chapter.

6. CHAPTER 1:- THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF REASONABLENESS
In the law of torts the principle of reasonableness has appeared for many occasions in the
different contexts in the purview of negligence itself. The negligence as in it has many facets
where a certain standard is required to analyze whether the conduct of the person is lawful or not.
But lets look at some of the judgments which brought the standard of care of the reasonable
person into activity. The standard was first brought by the case Vaughan v. Menlove(supra)5
where in it was declared that “The care taken by a prudent man has always been the rule laid
down; and as to the supposed difficulty of applying it, a jury has always been able to say,
whether, taking that rule as their guide, there has been negligence on the occasion in question.
Instead, therefore, of saying that the liability for negligence should be co-extensive with the
judgment of each individual, which would be as variable as the length of the foot of each
individual, we ought rather to adhere to the rule which requires in all cases a regard to caution
such as a man of ordinary prudence would observe. That was, in substance, the criterion
presented to the jury in this case and, therefore, the present rule must be discharged.”
The rule was again used in the case Blyth v. Company Proprietors of the Birmingham’s water
works6
.
But later in the case of Re polemis the standard of care was changed from reasonableness to the
directness of consequences. The court decided that the direct consequences test was the apt one
and resorted to it but later on in the Wagon Mound case the principle was reinforced and said
that the principle of reasonableness is the correct standard and the principle of directness of
consequences is very harsh and the defendants would have been treated wrongly had they been
considered liable for the acts which was just not forseeable in the consequences and moreover
the person can’t be held liable for the unforeseen consequences i.e.; that cannot be foreseen by a
man with reasonable prudence and foresight.
Later there was an application of the principle in various ways in which the scope of the
reasonable man standard was broadened and the interpretation was done in many contexts as in
the case Hughes v. Lord Advocate as there was a manhole kept unprotected and only kept
5
Supra note no.1
6
156 ER 1047

7. surrounded by paraffin lamps and a child came and he fell into the manhole and paraffin lamp
went alongside and the explosion took place and the person got severely hurt and the post office
was held liable for the damages to the child as the court said that the authority could have
reasonably foreseen that any child may be attracted towards the illuminated paraffin lamps