ผู้ใช้:Zambo/วิญญูชน

วิญญูชนไม่ลวงในที่ลับ
ถ้าหากบิดเบือนเพราะคนอื่นไม่รู้ก็อาจจะทำให้คนบริสุทธิ์ต้องเดือดร้อน
และไม่คู่ควรจะเป็นผู้รักษากฎหมาย

— เปาบุ้นจิ้น

วิญญูชน (อังกฤษ: reasonable person หรือ person of ordinary prudence) หมายถึง บุคคลผู้รู้ผิดรู้ชอบตามปรกติ เป็นนิติสมมุติของฝ่ายกฎหมายจารีตประเพณีที่ใช้เป็นมาตรฐานเชิงวัตถุวิสัยสำหรับวัดความประพฤติของบุคคลว่าได้ใช้ความระมัดระวังหรืออยู่ในขนาดของความระมัดระวังเพียงพอหรือเปล่า

ประวัติ

หลักการเรื่องวิญญูชนปรากฏครั้งแรกในประเทศอังกฤษ ในคดีอันมีโวแกน (Vaughan) เป็นโจทก์ และเม็นเลิฟ (Menlove) เป็นจำเลย เมื่อ พ.ศ. 2380 (คดีหมายเลข "Vaughan v. Menlove (1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 467, 132 E.R. 490 (C.P.)") ความว่า จำเลยได้สุมฟางบนทรัพย์สินที่ตนได้เช่ามา เพื่อผิงไฟให้ความอบอุ่น แต่ไฟได้ลุกไหม้และเผาผลาญยุ้งฉางและคอกสัตว์ของจำเลยเอง กับทั้งได้ลามไปไหม้ทับสองหลังซึ่งอยู่ใกล้กันนั้นและิเป็นทรัพย์สินของเจ้าของที่ดิน ทนายความฝ่ายจำเลยแถลงว่าลูกความโชคไม่ดีที่พอดีว่าเป็นคนระดับล่างและเบาปัญญา โดยฟ้องแย้งว่า ลูกความควรได้รับการตัดสินว่ามีความประมาทเลินเล่อต่อเมื่อคณะลูกขุนเห็นว่าจำเลยได้กระทำการโดยไม่สุจริตเท่านั้น ศา่ลไม่เห็นพ้องด้วย ให้เห็นผลว่าเหตุผลดังกล่าวเป็นเรื่องอัตวิสัยเกินไป และพิพากษาไว้เป็นบรรทัดฐานสำหรับคดีต่อ ๆ ไปว่า

ความระมัดระวังที่ผู้มีความรอบคอบได้ใช้ เป็นกฎที่ถือกันมาตลอด ดังนั้น บรรทัดฐานในสมัยปัจจุบันนี้ก็ให้เลิกเสีย 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.

ศาลอังกฤษได้ใช้บรรทัดฐานดังกล่าวอีกครั้งในอีกยี่สิบปีถัดมาในคดีซึ่งมีไบลท์ (Blyth) เป็นโจทก์ และบริษัทเจ้าทรัพย์แห่งการประปาเบอร์มิงแฮม (Company Proprietors of the Birmingham Water Works) เป็นจำเลย โดยพิพากษาว่า "ความประมาทเลินเล่อ คือ การละเว้นที่จะทำการใดอันวิญญูชนผู้ไตร่ตรองโดยใช้วิจารณญาณซึ่งเป็นแนวทางสำหรับความประพฤติของมนุษย์ทั่ว ๆ ไปว่าเป็นสิ่งพึงกระทำ หรือ [การละเว้นที่จะ] ไม่กระทำการใดอันวิญญูชนผู้มีความรอบคอบไม่พึงกระทำ"

Rationale

American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes explained the theory behind the reasonable person standard as stemmming from the impossibility of "measuring a man's powers and limitations." Individual, personal quirks inadvertently injuring the persons or property of others are no less damaging than intentional acts. In order for society to function, "a certain average of conduct, a sacrifice of individual peculiarities going beyond a certain point, is necessary to the general welfare." Thus, a reasonable application of the law is sought, compatible with planning, working, or getting along with others. As such, "his neighbors accordingly require him, at his proper peril, to come up to their standard, and the courts which they establish decline to take his personal equation into account."

The reasonable person standard is by no means democratic in its scope; it is, contrary to popular conception, intentionally distinct from that of the "average person," who is not necessarily guaranteed to always be reasonable. The reasonable person will weigh all of the following factors before acting:

• the foreseeable risk of harm her actions create versus the utility of her actions;
• the extent of the risk so created;
• the likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others;
• any alternatives of lesser risk, and the costs of those alternatives.

Taking such actions requires the reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. Such a person might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but whatever that person does or thinks, it is always "reasonable."

The reasonable person has been called an "excellent but odious character."

“ He is an ideal, a standard, the embodiment of all those qualities which we demand of the good citizen ... [he] invariably looks where he is going, ... is careful to examine the immediate foreground before he executes a leap or bound; ... neither stargazes nor is lost in meditation when approaching trapdoors or the margins of a dock; ... never mounts a moving [bus] and does not alight from any car while the train is in motion, ... uses nothing except in moderation, and even flogs his child in meditating only on the golden mean. ”

Hand Rule

บทความหลัก: Calculus of negligence

Under American common law, a well known—though nonbinding—test for determining how a reasonable person might weigh the criteria listed above was set down in United States v. Carroll Towing Co. by the Chief Justice of the Second Circuit Court, Learned Hand. Writing for the court, Hand held:

“ [T]he owner's duty, as in other similar situations, to provide against resulting injuries is a function of three variables: (1) The probability that she will break away; (2) the gravity of the resulting injury, if she does; (3) the burden of adequate precautions. ”

While the test offered by Hand does not encompass all of the criteria available above, juries in a negligence case might well still be instructed to take the other factors into consideration in order to determine whether the defendant was negligent.

พฤติการณ์ของบุคคล

While the legal fiction of the reasonable person represents the ideal human actor, one would be hard pressed to charaterize any individual human as meeting the standard, whether in whole or in part, all of the time. Since some human actors have limitations, the standard only requires that people act similarly to how "a reasonable person under the circumstance" would, as if their limitations were themselves circumstances. As such, courts require that the reasonable person be viewed as experiencing the same limitations as the defendant. For example, the standard to which a disabled defendant would be held is by necessity how a reasonable person with that same disability would act.

One should not mistake this allowance for physical limitations as an allowance for poor judgment, attempting acts beyond one's abilities, or acting too quickly, etc. Were such allowances made for every defendant, there would be as many different standards for negligence as there were defendants; and courts would spend innumerable hours, and the parties much more money, on determining that particular defendant's reasonableness, character, and intelligence. By using the reasonable person standard, the courts instead use an objective tool and avoid such subjective evaluations.

The result is a standard which allows the law to behave in a uniform, foreseeable, and neutral manner when attempting to determine liability.

เด็ก

One broad allowance made to the reasonable person standard is for children. The standard here requires that a child act in a similar manner to how a "reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience under like circumstances" would act. In many common law systems, children under the age of 6 or 7 are typically exempt from any liability, whether civil or criminal, as they are deemed to be unable to understand the risk involved in their actions. Children of ages 7 to 17 are held to a reasonable person standard which factors in the criteria above. Although these allowances are made for children, they can still be, and are sometimes found, negligent.

One of the exceptions to these allowances concern children engaged in what is primarily considered to be high-risk adult activity, such as driving.

ความผิดปรกติทางจิต

หลักการเรื่องวิญญูชนมิได้ละเว้นสำหรับผู้มีความผิดปรกติทางจิต การปฏิเสธความผิดปรกติทางจิตนี้ต้องย้อนกลับไปถึงคดีระหว่างโวแกนกับเม็นเลิฟซึ่งทนายความของเม็นเลิฟฟ้องแย้งโดยใช้เหตุผลทางจิตวิสัย คำพิพากษาคดีดัีงกล่าวสร้างบรรทัดฐานไว้ว่า ผู้มีความผิดปรกติทางจิตก็สามารทำการอย่างวิญญูชนได้ หากว่าอยู่ในสภาพที่สามารถใช้ความระมัดระวังและควบคุมตัวเองได้อย่างมากเท่าที่จะทำได้ ถ้าเขาไม่ประสงค์จะรับผิดชอบในความเสี่ยงใด ๆ อันอาจเกิดขึ้นจากกระทำของตน ก็เพียงแต่ใช้ความระมัดระวังและควบคุมตนเองอย่างมากเท่าที่จะมากได้

อาชีพการงาน

In cases where a human actor is a professional and is acting within her professional capacity, the "reasonable person under the circumstances" test is generally elevated to a standard of whether the person acted how a "reasonable professional under the circumstances" would have. Other factors also become relevant, such as the degree to which the professional is educated (i.e., whether a specialist within the specific field, or just a general practioner of the trade), and customary practices and general procedures of similar professionals.

However, such other relevant factors are not always determinant. Some professions may maintain a custom or practice long after a better method has become available. The new practices, though less risky, may be entirely ignored. In such cases, the practioner may very well have acted unreasonable dispite following custom or general practices.

External circumstances

Factors external to the defendant are always relevant. Additionally, so is the context within which the action is made. It is within these circumstances that the determinations and actions of the defendant are to be judged. There are myriad factors that could provide inputs into how a person acts: individual perceptions, knowledge, the weather, etc. It is precisely for this wide-ranging variety of fact that the reasonable person standard is so broad (and often confusing and difficult to apply). However, a few general areas of relevant circumstances rise above the others.

Emergency doctrine

Allowing for circumstances under which a person must act urgently is important to preventing hindsight bias from affecting the trier of fact. Given pressing circumstances, a reasonable person may not always act in a manner similar to how she would have acted in a more relaxed setting. As such, it is only fair that actions be judged in light of any exigent conditions which could have affected how the defendant acted.

Available resources

In certain circumstances, sometimes human actors are faced with the problem of making due only with what's available. Such circumstances are also relevant to any determination of whether the defendant acted reasonably. Where necessary resources are scarce certain actions may be reasonable, whereas in places where those same resources are available, but not readily at hand, such action would be unreasonable.

Negligence per se

บทความหลัก: Negligence per se

Because a reasonable person is objectively presumed to know the law, noncompliance with a local statute may also constitute negligence. The related doctrine of negligence per se addresses the circumstances under which the law of negligence can become an implied cause of action for breaching a statutory standard of care.

Reasonable bystander

บทความหลัก: Offer and acceptance

For common law contracts, disputes over contract formation are subjected to what is known as the objective test of assent in order to determine whether a contract exists. This standard is also known as the reasonable bystander, reasonable third party, or reasonable person in the position of the party. This is in contrast to the subjective test employed in most civil law jurisdictions. The test stems from attempts to balance the competing interests of the judicial policies of assent and of reliability. The former holds that no person ought to be contractually obligated if they did not consent to such an agreement; the latter holds that if no person can rely on actions or words demonstrating consent, then the whole system of commercial exchange will ultimately collapse.

Prior to the 19th century, courts used a test of subjective evalutation; that is, the trier of fact determined each party's understanding. If both parties were of the same mind and understanding on matters, then assent was manitfested and the contract was valid. Between the 19th and 20th centuries, the courts shifted toward the objectivist test, reasoning that subjective testimony was often unreliable and self-serving.

From those opposite principles, modern law has found its way to a rough middle ground, though it still shows a strong bias toward the objective test. Promises and agreements are reached through manifestations of consent, and parties are liable for actions that deliberately manifest such consent; however, evidence of either party's state of mind can be used to determine the context of the manifestation if said evidence is reliable and compatible with the manifestation in question, though such evidence is typically given very little weight.

Another circumstance where the reasonable bystander test is used occurs when one party has inadvertently misstated the terms of the contract, and the other party sues to enforce those terms: if it would have been clear to a reasonable bystander that a mistake had been made, then the contract is voidable by the party who made the error; otherwise, the contact is binding.

Equivalents outside of common law systems

In Roman law, the standard of reasonable care, for example by a trustee or guardian, was that of the paterfamilias. In French law, this is rendered as the bon père de famille, an expression also used in Quebec until it was superseded by the common-law influenced personne raisonnable.

Satire

The legal humorist A. P. Herbert considered the concept of the Reasonable Man at length in the celebrated fictional case of "Fardell v. Potts," deciding that there is no such thing as a "reasonable woman".

References

• Vaughn v. Menlove, 132 ER 490 (Common Pleas 1837).
• Blyth v. Company Proprietors of the Birmingham Water Works, 156 ER 1047 (Exchequer 1856).
• Blum, Brian A. (2004). Contracts (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Aspen Publishers.
• Glannon, Jospeh W. (2005). The Law of Torts (4th ed.). New York, NY: Aspen Publishers.
• Herbert, A.P. (1932), Misleading Cases in the Common Law (7th ed.)
• Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr. (1909), The Common Law (2nd ed.)

See also

• Beyond a reasonable doubt
• Casuistry
• Contract theory

• Man on the Bondi tram
• Man on the Clapham omnibus
• Reasonable suspicion

• Reasonable woman
• Standard of care in English law
• Torts

แม่แบบ:Law แม่แบบ:Legal Doctrines