Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 FEBRUARY 2011

In Search of Fairminded Jurists

Many principles of law revolve around the concept of a "reasonable person." Of course, negligence law often applies a "reasonable person" standard to determine whether a defendant breached a duty owed to a plaintiff.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Originally published by The Legal Intelligencer Blog

Many principles of law revolve around the concept of a "reasonable person." Of course, negligence law often applies a "reasonable person" standard to determine whether a defendant breached a duty owed to a plaintiff. Similarly, in determining whether summary judgment or judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be entered for a defendant, courts typically ask whether the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

In some circumstances, however, the focus is not on the reasonable person or a reasonable jury, but on a reasonable jurist. In those situations, courts must engage in the strange task of determining whether fellow judges have reached a decision that no reasonable judge could reach.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from