Reasonable person

After the war, although now famous, Meitner continued her research in Stockholm, interrupted only by trips to receive honorary degrees and other scientific accolades. She shared in the prestigious Enrico Fermi Prize awarded by the U.S. Atomic Energy Committee in 1966. She retired to Cambridge, England, m 1960, to be near her nephew, Otto Frisch, and died there hi 1968 at the age of ninety. Like so many people all over the world during the Hitler period, Meitner s life had been far from easy, but no reasonable person would ever be tempted to call her life empty. 

This has been defined as "the failure to do something a reasonable person would do, or to do something a reasonable person would not do . For an action in liability to succeed in negligence the following conditions must be satisfied ... 

Based on this evidence, the odds that a toxic release caused the flshkill is a convincing 108 to 1. The level of belief is now sufficiently high for a reasonable person to take regulatory action. Bayes theorem allowed optimal use of evidence to define the belief warranted in the causal hypothesis that a toxic release caused the flshkill evidence changed our state of knowledge about the flshkill. 

The role of carbohydrates in biological communication is well illustrated by the human blood types.a b According to the ABO system first described by Landsteiner in 1900, individuals are classified into types A, B, AB, and O. Blood of individuals of the same type can be mixed without clumping of cells, but serum from a type O individual contains antibodies that agglutinate erythrocytes of persons of types A and B. Serum of persons of type B causes type A cells to clump and vice versa. Individuals of none of the four types have antibodies against type O erythrocytes. For this reason, persons with type O blood are sometimes inaccurately described as "universal donors."... 

Tort law uses an objective standard in judging behavior it does not seek to determine whether a person performed as well as he or she could have done but whether the performance met the standard society imposes for all of its members acting under the same circumstances (28). The objective approach looks at how an ordinary reasonable person would react in the same situation. It does not consider a person s individual unique traits, but creates a fictitious majoritarian figure and utilizes that character as a standard. The rationale for the use of this method is that it creates uniformity in the law and ensures that society as a whole can rely on a certain standard of care from their fellow citizens. 

The first court decisions applied the same legal test to informed consent cases that was applied to negligence cases The practitioner was held to the standard of the reasonable person. Liability was imposed if the practitioner was found to have breached the duty to act as a reasonable practitioner would have acted under the same or similar circumstances. In determining the standard of care expected of the practitioner, the courts allowed other practitioners to testify concerning the warnings or disclosures that were necessary. Hence, the standard was a profession-set one, based on expert testimony and determined by the conduct of other practitioners. If the defendant practitioner provided that amount of information deemed to be reasonable by other practitioners, then a breach of duty did not occur. 

The law holds every individual to a reasonable standard of conduct, and failure to exercise reasonable care creates liability if it results in harm to others. Accordingly, negligence may be defined as the omission to do something which a reasonable person, guided by those ordinary considerations which ordinarily regulate hmnan af irs, would do, or the doing of something which a reasonable and prudent person would not do. ... 

The court subsequently overturned the criminal indictment, ruling that the OSHA PSM regulation was so ambiguous a reasonable person could not have determined whether it applied to the defendant s activities and that the Administrative Procedures Act prohibits application of OSHA s informal interpretations in a criminal case (Surrick, Judge R. Barclay, United States of America v. Irl "Chip" Ward, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Sept. 5, 2001). 

How much information is necessary for potential subjects to be informed Should investigators tell the subjects how much money they are compensated per subject recruited It is probably unnecessary for subjects to understand how clinical research is funded (e.g., overhead fees, fees for certain services), unless this information would influence any reasonable person to participate (or not to participate). The pharmacy profes-... 

The IRBs should review research funding for appropriateness and possible coercion, specifically as it applies to subject recruitment. If the amount of payment is so high as to induce any reasonable person to participate, regardless of the risk, it is obviously too high. It becomes difficult, however, to determine when coercion is present because the majority of cases are not this obvious. Investigators should be able to justify any payment to... 

In exceptional cases, consultants from the private sector may be appointed to perform inspections, provided that there is no conflict of interests and that all confidentiality undertakings are agreed upon and maintained. For these reasons, persons working in a manufacturing company may not be considered suitable. Interested external inspectors should submit their letters of... 

There is no organized religion of LSD. The LSD experience is one of self awareness and discovery. In this context, LSD is used specifically for medical reasons/personal psychotherapy. Many individuals who occasionally take LSD may not smoke marijuana, cigarettes or use any other drugs for that matter. 

Reasonable Royalty. If lost profits cannot be shown, the patentee is entitled to a reasonable royalty, which is calculated as the amount a reasonable person would have been willing to pay as a royalty in a hypothetical negotiation at the time infringement began. 

Under these circumstances, decisions are made for the patient using the best Interest standard. The object of the standard is to decide what a hypothetical "reasonable person would decide to do after weighing the benefits and burdens of each course of action. 

Known to or reasonably ascertainably by is defined as all information in a person s possession or control, plus all information that a reasonable person similarly situated might be expected to possess, control, or know. ... 

All test data in the PMN submitter s possession or control, as that term is defined in the regulations, that relate to effects on health or the environment caused by manufacturing, processing, distributing in commerce, use, or disposal of the PMN substance or any mixture, formulation, or article containing it must be submitted with the PMN form, with some limited exceptions discussed below. Note that test data must only be submitted if it is within the submitter s possession or control and there is no obligation to search for all information that a reasonable person in the same situation might be expected to know. Test data that must be submitted with a PMN includes ... 

Any significant HSE hazards which contractor employees are likely to encounter while on company premises. This disclosure should be in writing and contain sufficient information to allow a reasonable person to determine how to conduct the work in a safe manner. 

Discriminatory practices under the laws EEOC enforces also include constructive discharge or forcing an employee to resign by making the work environment so intolerable a reasonable person would not be able to stay. ... 

To determine if the other party had a duty to act or committed a breach, courts will normally look to see what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances. The problem in the transportation industry is that our duty to act in many areas is clearly defined in the regulations. This creates a situation where the other party only needs to prove that you either knew, or should have known, about the regulations and your responsibility to comply with them. 

If the compliance officer determines that a deficiency exists in the employer s training program, he/she must document evidence of any barriers or impediments to understanding, as well as any other facts that would demonstrate that employees were unable to understand the training and apply it to their specific workplace conditions. If a reasonable person would conclude that the employer had not conveyed the training to its employees in a manner they were capable of understanding, then the violation may be cited as serious if it is within the guidelines set out in [OSHA s Field Operations Manual (FOM)]. . . ... 

---