The Standard of the Reasonable Person in Determining Negligence – Comparative Conclusions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2021/v24i0a8631Keywords:
American la, bonus pater familias, children, delict, English law, fault, faute, French law, mental impairment, negligence, physical disability, reasonableness, reasonable expert, reasonable person, South African law, standard, the elderly, tortAbstract
The standard of the reasonable person or its equivalent, in general, is used in many jurisdictions to determine fault in the form of negligence. Although the standard is predominantly objective it is also subjective in that the subjective attributes of the person against whom the standard applies as well as the subjective circumstances present at the time of the delict or tort lend themselves to an objective-subjective application. In South African law, before a person can be judged according to the standard of the reasonable person, the person must first be held accountable. If a person cannot be held accountable, then the standard does not apply at all.
The general standard of the reasonable person cannot be applied to children, the elderly, persons with physical disabilities, persons with mental impairments or experts. Therefore, depending on the subjective attributes of the person against whom the standard is being applied, the standard may have to be adjusted accordingly. The general standard of the reasonable person would be raised when dealing with experts, for instance, and lowered when dealing with persons with physical disabilities.
This contribution considers whether the current application of the standard of the reasonable person in South African law is satisfactory when applied generally to all persons, no matter their age, experience, gender, physical disability and cognitive ability. The application of the standard of the reasonable person in South African law is compared to the application of the standard of the reasonable person or its equivalent in the United Kingdom, the United States of America and France. Just as South African law applies the standard of the reasonable expert to experts, this contribution explores whether the South African law should be developed to use similar adjusted standards when dealing with children, the elderly, persons with physical disabilities and so on.
The general standard of the reasonable person cannot be applied to children, the elderly, persons with physical disabilities, persons with mental impairments as well as experts. Thus depending on the subjective attributes of the person against whom the standard is being applied, the standard may have to be adjusted accordingly or if the person cannot be held accountable, not applied at all. The general standard of the reasonable person would for example be raised when dealing with experts and lowered when dealing with persons with physical disabilities.
This contribution considers whether the current application of the standard of the reasonable person in South African law is satisfactory when applied generally, to all persons, no matter their age, experience, gender, physical disability and cognitive ability. The application of the standard of the reasonable person in South African law is compared to the application of the standard of the reasonable person or its equivalent in the United Kingdom, the United States of America and France. Just as South African law applies the standard of the reasonable expert to experts, this contribution explores whether the South African law should be developed to use similar adjusted standards when dealing with children, the elderly, persons' with physical disabilities and so on.
[1] In French law bonus pater familias as three separate words is encountered (see para 3.4 below) whereas in South African law, bonus paterfamilias, as two separate words is encountered (see for example, Neethling and Potgieter Law of Delict 142-143). In this contribution, for the sake of uniformity and convenience, bonus pater familias as three separate words will be used.
Downloads
References
Bibliography
Literature
Ahmed R The Explicit and Implicit Influence of Reasonableness on the Elements of Delictual Liability (LLD-thesis University of South Africa 2018)
Ahmed R "The Influence of Reasonableness on the Element of Conduct in Delictual or Tort Liability - Comparative Conclusions" 2019 PELJ 1-34
Ahmed R "The Origins of the Recent New Approach to Determining Wrongfulness in the South African Law of Delict" 2019 THRHR 136-146
Alexander GJ and Szas TS "Mental Illness as an Excuse for Civil Wrongs" 1967 Notre Dame L Rev 24-38
American Law Institute Restatement Second of Torts (American Law Institute St Paul 1965)
American Law Institute Restatement Second of Torts (American Law Institute St Paul 1979)
American Law Institute Restatement Third of Torts (Apportionment of Liability) (American Law Institute St Paul 2000)
American Law Institute Restatement Third of Torts (Liability for Physical Harm) (American Law Institute St Paul 2005)
American Law Institute Restatement Third of Torts (Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm) (American Law Institute St Paul 2010)
Artosi A "Reasonableness, Common Sense, and Science" in Bongiovanni G, Sartor G and Valentini C Reasonableness and Law (Springer Dordrecht 2009) 69-78
Barett CV III "Negligence and the Elderly: A Proposal for a Relaxed Standard of Care" 1984 J Marshall L Rev 873-894
Bender L "A Lawyer's Primer on Feminist Theory and Tort" 1988 J Leg Ed 3-37
Boberg PQR The Law of Delict Volume 1: Aquilian Liability (Juta Cape Town 1984)
Brun P "Country Reports: France" 2002 Eur Tort Law Yearb 179-206
Burchell JM Principles of Delict (Juta Cape Town 1993)
Cannarsa M "Country Reports: France" 2004 Eur Tort Law Yearb 274-299
Deakin S and Adams Z Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law 8th ed (Clarendon Press Oxford 2019)
Dobbs DB, Hayden PT and Bublick EM Hornbook on Torts 2nd ed (West St Paul 2016)
Donovan DA and Wildman SM "Is the Reasonable Man Obsolete? A Critical Perspective on Self-defence and Provocation" 1981 Loy LA L Rev 435-468
Epstein RA and Sharkey CM Cases and Materials on Torts 11th ed (Aspen Law New York 2016)
Ferreira N Fundamental Rights and Private Law in Europe: The Case of Tort Law and Children (Routledge Abingdon 2013)
Fleming JG The Law of Torts 9th ed (Law Book Company Sydney 1998)
Galand-Carval S "Liability for Damage Caused by Others under French Law" in Spier J (ed) Unification of Tort Law: Liability for Damage Caused by Others (Kluwer Law The Hague 2003) 85-103
Gilligan C In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (Harvard University Press Cambridge 1982)
Green MD and Cardi WJ "Basic Questions of Tort Law from the Perspective of the USA" in Koziol H (ed) Basic Questions of Tort Law from a Comparative Perspective (Jan Sramek Verlag Vienna 2015) 431-514
Hart HLA Concept of Law (Oxford University Press Oxford 1961)
Holmes OW The Common Law (MacMillan London 1881)
Jansen R-M and Neethling J "Delictual Capacity and Contributing Negligence of Minors" 2017 THRHR 474-482
Jones MA "Negligence" in Jones MA (gen ed) Clerk and Lindsell on Torts 21st ed (Sweet & Maxwell London 2014) 439-607
Keating GC "Reasonableness and Rationality in Negligence Theory" 1996 Stan L Rev 311-384
Keeton P et al Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts 5th ed (West St Paul 1984)
Loubser MM and Midgley JR (eds) The Law of Delict in South Africa 3rd ed (Oxford University Press Cape Town 2018)
Martin RM "A Feminist View of the Reasonable Man: An Alternative Approach to Liability in Negligence for Personal Injury" 1994 Anglo-Am L Rev 334-374
McBride NJ and Bagshaw R Tort Law 6th ed (Pearson Education New York 2018)
Miller AD and Perry R "The Reasonable Person" 2012 NYU L Rev 323-392
Moran M Rethinking the Reasonable Person: An Egalitarian Reconstruction of the Objective Standard (Oxford University Press Oxford 2003)
Moréteau O "Basic Questions of Tort Law from a French Perspective" in Koziol H (ed) Basic Questions of Tort Law from a Comparative Perspective (Jan Sramek Verlag Vienna 2015) 3-98
Moréteau O "Country Reports: France" 2007 Eur Tort Law Yearb 274-287
Moréteau O "Country Reports: France" 2009 Eur Tort Law Yearb 198-216
Mullender R "The Reasonable Person, the Pursuit of Justice, and Negligence Law" 2005 MLR 681-695
Neethling J "Self-defence: The 'Unreasonable' Reasonable Man" 2002 SALJ 283-287
Neethling J and Potgieter JM Law of Delict 8th ed (LexisNexis Durban 2020)
Peel E and Goudkamp J Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort 19th ed (Sweet & Maxwell London 2014)
Ripstein A "Reasonable Persons in Private Law" in Bongiovanni G, Sartor G and Valentini C (eds) Reasonableness and Law (Springer New York 2009) 253-281
Sappideen C and Vines P (eds) Fleming's The Law of Torts 10th ed (Law Book Company Sydney 2011)
Scott TJ "Loureiro and Others v iMvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd 2014 3 SA 394 (SCA): Determination of Constitutional Nature of Contractual and Delictual Claims" 2014 De Jure 374-392
Van Dam C European Tort Law 2nd ed (Oxford University Press Oxford 2013)
Van der Walt JC and Midgley JR Principles of Delict 4th ed (LexisNexis Durban 2016)
Van Gerven W, Lever JF and Larouche P Tort Law (Hart Oxford 2000)
Viney G "Tort Liability" in Bermann GA and Picard E (eds) Introduction to French Law (Kluwer Law The Hague 2012) 237-261
Visser D "Compensation for Pecuniary Loss – Actio Legis Aquiliae" in Du Bois F (ed) Wille's Principles of South African Law 9th ed (Juta Cape Town 2007) 1094-1160
Vogel U "Is Citizenship Gender-specific?" in Vogel U and Moran M The Frontiers of Citizenship (MacMillan London 1991) 58-85
Weinrib EJ Tort Law: Cases and Materials (Emond Montgomery Toronto 1997)
Welke BY Recasting American Liberty (Cambridge University Press New York 2001)
Witting CA Street on Torts 15th ed (Oxford University Press Oxford 2017)
Zipursky BC "Rawls in Tort Theory: Themes and Counter-Themes" 2004 Fordham L Rev 1923-1940
Zipursky BC "Reasonableness in and out of Negligence Law" 2015 U Pa L Rev 2131-2170
Zweigert K and Kötz H Introduction to Comparative Law 3rd ed (Clarendon Press Oxford 2011)
Case law
Australia
Adamson v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust 1957 58 WALR 56 (SC)
Cook v Cook 1986 68 ALR 353
McHale v Watson 1966 115 CLR 199 (Aust HC)
McNeilly v Imbree 2008 HCA 40
Canada
Coley v CPR 1906 29 (Que SC)
Lengyel v Manitoba Power Commission 1957 12 DLR 2d 126 (Man CA)
Michaud v Dupuis 1977 20 NBR 2d 305 (QB)
Pollock v Lipkowitz 1970 17 DLR 3d 766 (Man QB)
France
CA Paris 6 June 1959, D 1959 76
Cass Ass plén 9 May 1984 80-93481, Bull crim 1984 164, JCP 1984 II 20255 note Dejean de La Bathie, D 1984 525 note Chabas RTDciv 1984 509 observations Huet
Cass Ass plén 29 March 1991 89-15231, Bull Ass plén 19911 1, D 1991 Jur 324 note Larroumet, JCP 1991 II 21673, conclusions Dontenwille note Ghestin, Gaz Pal 1991 Jur 513 note Chabas
Cass Ass plén 13 December 2002 00-13787, Bull Ass plén 2002 4 7, D 2003 231 note Jourdain
Cass civ 18 June 1896, S 1897 1 17 note Esmein, D 1897 1 4333, note Saleilles
Cass civ 1 20 May 1936 (Mercier), DP I 88
Cass civ 1 20 July 1976 74-10238, Bull civ 1976 I 270 218
Cass civ 1 9 November 2004 01-17908, Bull civ 2004 I 262 219
Cass civ 1 29 November 2005 03-16308, Bull civ 2005 I 456 383
Cass civ 1 18 September 2008 07-12170; Bull civ 2008 I 205
Cass civ 1 18 September 2008 07-13080, Bull civ 2008 I 206
Cass civ 2 8 February 1962, Bull civ 1962 II 180
Cass civ 2 1 December 1965, JCP 1966 2 14567
Cass civ 2 15 December 1965, D 1966 Jur 397
Cass civ 2 10 February 1966, D 1966 332
Cass civ 2 4 February 1981 79-11243, Bull civ 1981 II 21, JCP 1981 IV 136
Cass civ 2 12 December 1984 82-12627, Bull civ 1984 II 193
Cass civ 2 3 July 1991 90-13158, Bull civ 1991 II 210 111
Cass civ 2 25 January 1995 92-18802, Bull civ 1995 II 29 17
Cass civ 2 19 February 1997 94-21111, Bull civ 1997 II 56 32, JCP 1997 II 22848
Cass civ 2 25 February 1998 95-20419, Bull civ 1998 II 62 38, JCP II 10149 note Viney
Cass civ 2 2 December 1998 96-22158, Bull civ 1998 292 176
Cass civ 2 20 January 2000 98-17005, Bull civ 2000 II 15 10
Cass civ 2 9 March 2000 98-18095, Bull civ 2000 II 44 31
Cass civ 2 9 March 2000 (Epoux X v Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale) 98-18095, Bull civ 2000 II 44 31
Cass civ 2 20 April 2000 98-18809, Bull civ 2000 66 46
Cass civ 2 29 March 2001 98-20721, Bull civ 2001 II 69 46
Cass civ 2 18 March 2004 03-10600, Bull civ 2004 II 140 118
Cass crim 26 March 1997 95-83957, Bull crim 1997 124 414, JCP 1997 II 22868
Cass crim 28 March 2000 99-84075, Bull crim 2000 140 416
Lacouture v Société Pyrotechnique Industrielle et agricole, Cass civ 2 4 July 1990 89-15177, Bull civ 1990 II 167 84
TGI St Etienne 15 May 1974, Gaz Pal 1976 109
South Africa
Clark v Welsh 1976 3 SA 484 (A)
Eskom Holdings Ltd v Hendricks 2005 5 SA 503 (SCA)
Esterhuizen v Administrator, Transvaal 1957 3 SA 710 (T)
Hafajee v South African Railways and Harbours 1981 3 SA 1062 (W)
Herschel v Mrupe 1954 3 SA 464 (A)
iMvula Quality Protection v Loureiro 2013 3 SA 407 (SCA)
Jacobs v Chairman, Governing Body, Rhodes High School 2011 1 SA 160 (WCC)
Jones v Santam Bpk 1965 2 SA 542 (A)
Kruger v Coetzee 1966 2 SA 428 (A)
Louwrens v Oldwage 2006 1 All SA 197 (SCA)
Lymbrey v Jefferies 1925 AD 236
Medi-Clinic Ltd v Vermeulen 2015 1 SA 241 (SCA)
Minister of Safety and Security v Carmichele 2004 3 SA 305 (SCA)
Mukheiber v Raath 1999 3 SA 1065 (SCA)
R v Verster 1952 2 SA 231 (A)
Roxa v Mtshayi 1975 3 SA 761 (A)
S v Campher 1987 1 SA 940 (A)
S v Chretien 1981 1 SA 1097 (A)
S v Laubscher 1998 1 SA 163 (A)
Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Duncan Dock Cold Storage (Pty) Ltd 2000 1 SA 827 (SCA)
Simon's Town Municipality v Dews 1993 1 SA 191 (A)
Van Wyk v Lewis 1924 AD 438
Weber v Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk 1983 1 SA 381 (A)
United Kingdom
Blake v Galloway 2004 1 WLR 284
Bolam v Friem Hospital 1957 1 WLR 582
Bolitho v City Hackney Health Authority 1998 AC 232
Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland 1909 AC 229 (HL)
Glasgow Corporation v Muir 1943 AC 488
Gough v National Coal Board 1953 2 All ER 1283 (CA)
Hanbury v Hanbury 1892 8 TLR 559
Mansfield v Weetabix 1988 1 WLR 1263
Maynard v West Midlands RHA 1984 1 WLR 634
Morris v Marsden 1952 1 All ER 925
Mullin v Richards 1998 1 All ER 920 (CA); 1998 1 WLR 1304
Nettleship v Weston 1971 2 QB 691
Orchard v Lee 2009 PIQR P16
Philips v William Whitely Ltd 1938 1 All ER 566
Roberts v Ramsbottom 1980 1 All ER 7 (QBD); 1980 1 WLR 823
Roe v Minister of Health 1954 2 QB 66
Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital 1985 AC 871
Vaughan v Menlove 1837 3 Bing NC 468; 132 ER 490 (CP)
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority 1987 QB 730
Wells v Cooper 1958 2 QB 265
Woolridge v Sumner 1963 2 QB 43
United States of America
Adams v Lopez 407 P 2d 50 (NM 1965)
Baker v Joyal 4 AD 3d 596, 771 NYS 2d 269 (2004)
Blakes v Blakes 517 So 2d 444 (La Ct App 1987)
Dellwo v Pearson 259 Minn 452, 107 NW 2d 859, 97 ALR 2d 866 (1961)
Dorais v Paquin 113 NH 187, 304 A 2d 369 (1973)
Fields v Senior Citizens Ctr Inc 528 So 2d 573, 581 (La Ct App 1988)
Fink v City of New York 206 Misc 79, 132 NYS 2d 172 (Sup Ct 1954)
First Nat'l Bank of Ariz v Dupree 136 Ariz 296, 665 P 2d 1018 (Ct App 1983)
Frazier v Common Wealth 845 A 2d 253, 260 (Pa Commw Ct 2004)
Frechette v Welch (1st Cir 1980) 621 F 2d 11
Goodfellow v Coggburn 98 Idaho 202, 203-204, 560 P 2d 873 (1977)
Goodrich v Blair 132 Ariz 459, 646 P 2d 890 (1982)
Gossett v Jackson 249 Va 549, 457 SE 2d 97 (1995)
Hancock-Underwood v Knight 670 SE 2d 720 (Va 2009)
Horton v Hinley 261 Ga 863, 413 SE 2d 199 (1992)
Howle v PYA/Monarch Inc 288 SC 586, 344 SE 2d 157 (1986)
Hudson v Old Guard Ins 3 A 3d 246 (Del 2010)
Jackson v McCuiston 448 SW 2d 33 (Ark 1969)
Lafayette Par Sch Bd v Cormier ex rel Cormier 901 So 2d 1197 (La Ct App 2005)
Lehmuth v Long Beach Unified Sch Dist 53 Cal 2d 544, 348 P 2d 887, 2 Cal Rptr 279 (1960)
Lenard v Dilley 805 So 2d 175 (La 2002)
Lugtu v Cal Highway Patrol 26 Cal 4th 703, 110 Cal Rptr 2d 528, 28 P 3d 249 (2011)
Lutzkovitz v Murray 339 A 2d 64, 93 ALR 3d 321 (Del 1975)
Massey v Scripter 1977 401 Mich 385, 258 NW 2d 44
Mastland Inc v Evans Furniture Inc 498 NW 2d 682 (Iowa 1993)
McGuire v Almy 8 NE 2d 760 (Mass 1936)
McNeely v M & M Supermarkets Inc 1980 154 Ga App 675, 269 SE 2d 483
Michigan Central Railroad v Hassenyer 48 Mich 205, 209-210 (SC 1882)
Moore v Preenell 1977 38 Md App 243, 379 A 2d 1246
Polmatier v Russ 537 A 2d 468 (Conn 1988)
Price v Kitsap Transit 125 Wash 2d 456, 886 P 2d 556 (1994)
Pritchard v Veterans Cab Co 63 Cal 2d 727, 408 P 2d 360, 47 Cal Rptr 904 (1965)
Purtle v Shelton 474 SW 2d 123 (Ark 1971)
Queen Ins v Hammond 374 Mich 655, 132 NW 2d 792 (1965)
Roberts v Ring 173 NW 437, 438 (Minn 1919)
Robins v City of Wichita 285 Kan 455, 172 P 3d 1187 (2007)
Robinson v Lindsay 92 Wash 2d 410, 598 P 2d 392 (1979)
Savage Indus v Duke 598 So 2d 856 (Ala 1992)
Sinai v Polinger Co 498 A 2d 520 (DC 1985)
St Mary's Hosp Inc v Bynum, Ark 1978 573 SW 2d 914
Steele v Holiday Inns Inc 626 So 2d 593 (Miss 1993)
Stewart v Jefferson Plywood Co 1970 255 Or 603, 469 P 2d 783
Swenson Trucking & Excavating Inc v Truckweld Equipment Co Alaska 1980 604 P 2d 1113
Torres v City of Los Angeles 58 Cal 2d 35, 372 P 2d 906, 22 Cal Rptr 866 (1962)
Trentacoast v Brussel 1980 82 NJ 214, 412 A 2d 436
Williams v Kearby 775 P 2d 670 (Kan App 1989)
Legislation
France
French Civil Code of 1804
Law no 68-5 of 3 January 1968
Law no 85-677 of 5 July 1985
Law no 2007-308 5 March 2007
South Africa
Child Justice Act 75 of 2008
Child Justice Amendment Bill of 2019
Published
Issue
Section
License
.png){kind=spacer}