In law, a
reasonable person (historically
reasonable man) or
The man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical person of
legal fiction whose is ultimately an
anthropomorphic representation of the body care standards crafted by the courts and communicated through
case law and
jury instructions. Strictly according to the fiction, it is misconceived for a party to seek evidence from actual people in order to establish how the reasonable man would have acted or what he would have foreseen. This person's character and care conduct under any
common set of facts, is decided through reasoning of good practice or policy—or "learned" permitting there is a compelling consensus of public opinion—by high courts. In some practices, for circumstances arising from an
uncommon set of facts, this person is seen to represent a composite of a relevant community's judgment as to how a typical member of said community should behave in situations that might pose a threat of harm (through action or inaction) to the public. However, cases resulting in
judgment notwithstanding verdict, such as
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, can be examples where a vetted jury's composite judgment were deemed outside that of the actual fictional reasonable person, and thus overruled.