Sentences with phrase «ordinary reasonable person»

A person is negligent when he or she fails to act like an «ordinary reasonable person» would have acted.

The determination of whether a given person has met the «ordinary reasonable person» standard is often a matter that is resolved by a jury after presentation of evidence and argument at trial.

His strongly worded statement said: «A casual reading of the reasons provided by the Commissioner in that document leaves an ordinary reasonable person with the conclusion that the decision to disqualify each of the presidential candidates was premised upon an alleged non-compliance with regulation 7 of the Public Elections Regulation, 2016 (C.I. 94).

«A casual reading of the reasons provided by the Commissioner in that document leaves an ordinary reasonable person with the conclusion that the decision to disqualify each of the presidential candidates was premised upon an alleged non-compliance with regulation 7 of the Public Elections Regulation, 2016 (C.I. 94).

Not exact matches

But UC contends it was «obvious» to extend the prokaryote work to eukaryotes, which is the heart of the Broad patents, and Broad contends that there was no reasonable expectation of success by people who had ordinary skill in the art.

(11) contain a representation or implication that is likely to cause an ordinary prudent lay person to misunderstand or be deceived, or fail to contain reasonable warnings or disclaimers necessary to make a representation or implication not deceptive;

The landmark decision in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 All ER 98, [1998] 1 WLR 896, signalled the simplicity of the test that in matters of construction the courts were concerned to ascertain the «meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person» (ie an objective test) by applying «the common sense principles by which any serious utterance would be interpreted in ordinary life».

Any adult who owes a duty of reasonable care toward a child may be found to have breached that duty of care if the adult fails to take the precautions any person of ordinary prudence would take to prevent a child from sustaining a burn injury of any kind.

Accordingly, the tribunal in this case should have asked itself two questions when deciding the issue of dishonesty: first, whether the first appellant had acted dishonestly by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people; and, second, whether he had been aware that by those standards he was acting dishonestly.

Reasonable person standard — An adult is guilty of negligence if he or she fails to act the way a person of ordinary intelligence and judgment would have acted in similar circumstances.

For an individual to have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the information in question, he must show that «the information... is «highly personal and sensitive» and that its disclosure would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities... [T] hose materials deserving the highest constitutional interest concern the intimate relationship of the claimant with other persons.»

The standard that is applied is whether a reasonable person exercising ordinary care would have been aware of the condition and fixed it or warned about it.

(7) For the purpose of clause (5)(i), expenses incurred to renovate the insured person's home shall be deemed not to be reasonable and necessary expenses if the renovations are only for the purpose of giving the insured person access to areas of the home that are not needed for ordinary living.

A warning also is not required when the extent of the product's danger would be obvious to ordinary, reasonable people using the product.

There is a difference between the standard of care that an ordinary «reasonable person» owes to any other person, and the standard of care owed by a professional in an area.

If this is just an ordinary - person on ordinary - person interaction, then the parties (both parties) are expected to exhibit the degree of caution that a «reasonable person» would exhibit (attempts to pin down what a «reasonable person» would do have proven impossible, though juries always know subjectively what a reasonable person would do).

Since the duty of ordinary care is that which a reasonable person would have used in circumstances similar to the accident, the ordinary duty of care can vary according to circumstances such as:

Ordinary care is the amount of attention that a reasonable person would have used in circumstances similar to those of the accident.

In medical malpractice lawsuits, doctors are held to a higher standard than that of an ordinary person: that of the reasonable doctor having the specialized skills and knowledge of a licensed physician.

To determine whether your conduct constitutes contributory negligence, the legal standard is whether you used the ordinary care that a reasonable person would use — the same standard applies to you and the other individual (s) involved in the accident.

``... before there can be a finding of dishonesty it must be established that the defendant's conduct was dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people and that he himself realised that by those standards his conduct was dishonest.»

First, whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest and;

The test of dishonesty for a jury was the well - established test articulated by Lord Lane in R v Ghosh [1982] 2 All ER 689, namely whether a jury would consider the conduct in question as dishonest «according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people»; and, if so, whether the proposed defendant «must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest».

(i) Whether in its judgment the conduct complained of was dishonest by the lay objective standards of ordinary reasonable and honest people; (if the answer to that was no, the defendant would be acquitted)

Whether a trustee's conduct is «reasonable» is generally determined on the basis of what an ordinary prudent business person would have done in the circumstances.

Making it nearly impossible for an ordinary person to really know which life insurance company will offer the best coverage in the most reasonable rate.

In the ruling, the judges said, «We thus conclude that under ordinary circumstances, the use of a cell - site simulator to locate a person through his or her cellphone invades the person's actual, legitimate, and reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her location information and is a search.»

A director's duties must be performed in good faith, in a manner the director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and with the care, including reasonable inquiry, that an ordinary prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances.