Search

During the height of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, some lawyer pundits made some rather remarkable observations: Saying certain things about the scandal, they advised people, might be legally punishable. "Be careful what you say," one headline warned, when you discuss "the Starr report and Clinton/Lewinsky matter" in certain ways. Such discussions "ought to be avoided" because of the risk of legal liability. "[I]t's best to choose carefully who you share your remarks, your jokes, with....'Attorneys warn us about [legal liability],' she said. Office humor in particular 'is always quicksand'...." "There's no right [to make certain statements about the Clinton/Lewinsky affair] just because it's a public issue." "We had quite a few clients calling us when Lewinsky jokes...were making the rounds." "People think that if they hear something on TV or the radio they can say it at work [without fear of legal liability]. But that of course is not the case." What body of law, one might ask, would suppress jokes about the President, or discussion of the Starr Report? Not the most publicized free speech restriction of the Clinton years, the Communications Decency Act, which had been struck down 9-0 by the Supreme Court. Rather, this remarkable speech restriction is hostile environment harassment law. Under this doctrine, speech can lead to massive liability so long as it is "severe or pervasive" enough to create a "hostile, abusive, or offensive work environment" for the plaintiff and for a reasonable person based on the person's race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, veteran status, and so on. And these rather vague and broad terms have long been interpreted to cover not just face-to-face slurs or repeated indecent propositions, but also sexually themed jokes and discussions, even ones that aren't about coworkers or directed to particular coworkers. The prudent employer is wise to restrict speech like this, whether it's about Clinton, Lewinsky, Starr, or anyone else--not just because of professionalism concerns (which some employers might care more about and others less), but because of the risk that this speech will be found to have been illegal. This article explores, through the lens of four specific Clinton-era cyberspace "harassing speech" controversies, how hostile environment harassment law has rapidly become one of the broadest modern restrictions on speech generally, and on cyberspace speech in particular.

The Model Penal Code approach to mens rea was a tremendous advance. The MPC carefully defines a limited number of mens rea terms, firmly establishes element analysis in place of offense analysis, and recognizes that the doctrine of mistake is part and parcel of the basic analysis of mens rea. However, a revised Code could improve the drafting of the mens rea provisions in a number of respects: * Clarify how to distinguish result, circumstance, and result elements * Simplify the definitions of knowledge and purpose * Perhaps eliminate the category of mens rea as to conduct * Clarify the fact/law distinction, and especially the distinction between two types of mistakes of law - mistakes of governing law and mistakes of legal element - that the MPC treats differently * Clarify the meaning of the "reasonable person" test * Clarify the definition of willful blindness Moreover, more fundamental questions arise with the central concept of recklessness. A reckless actor is one who must be aware of a "substantial and unjustifiable" risk; are these independent or interdependent requirements? What type or degree of consciousness is required? Of what, precisely, must the actor be aware? Does a strict "consciousness" requirement undermine the rule that ignorance of law is no excuse? And should consciousness extend to "latent" knowledge that the actor could call up if he were to consider the matter even for a moment? Furthermore, does the MPC hierarchy always work? Is knowledge really always worse than recklessness? Is recklessness always worse than negligence? Should culpable indifference or a similar mental state be added to the hierarchy? Are the MPC categories too cognitive, or too descriptive, or too rigid? Finally, the conclusion examines some theoretical and pragmatic implications of the analysis.

In criminal cases of self-defense and provocation, and civil cases of negligence, culpability is often decided with reference to how a reasonably prudent person (RPP) would have behaved in similar circumstances. The RPP is said to be an objective standard in that it eschews consideration of a defendant's unique background or characteristics. We discuss theory and evidence suggesting that in morally relevant judgments, including those involving negligence, self-defense, and provocation, the tendency to rely on the self—on one's own values and predilections—dominates considerations of the RPP. We consider subjective standards that have been proposed as alternatives to the RPP and review research on this topic. We conclude by considering avenues for future research, particularly addressing conditions in which self-standards of reasonableness are most likely to prevail.

OBJECTIVE Custody is a legal state that requires police to Mirandize suspects and, in some jurisdictions, to record their interrogation. The present study compared the custody perceptions of police, judges, social psychologists, and laypeople. HYPOTHESES We predicted that (a) high-custody vignettes would elicit less perceived freedom than low-custody vignettes; (b) police and judges would see these situations as less custodial relative to social psychologists and laypeople; (c) these differences would arise mostly in ambiguous vignettes; and (d) participants in general would perceive suspects as objectively having more freedom to leave than they subjectively feel they have. METHOD Police officers (n = 223), trial judges (n = 219), social psychologists (n = 228), and laypeople (n = 205) read a vignette of a police-suspect encounter that presented high-, ambiguous, or low-levels of custody and indicated their perceptions of the suspect's freedom to leave. RESULTS Participants perceived the most freedom in the low-custody vignettes, followed by ambiguous and high-custody vignettes, and all groups differed significantly from each other (ηp2 = .39). Police and judges overestimated how free they thought the suspect would feel compared to social psychologists and laypeople, who did not differ from each other (ηp2 = .085). Participants in general saw the suspect as objectively freer than they thought he felt, and themselves as feeling freer than they believed the suspect did (ηp2 = .35). Police defined a "reasonable person" as someone who is mentally stable, whereas judges were more likely to cite a person of average intelligence. CONCLUSION Despite the assumption that custody can be defined by the effects of objective circumstances on the reasonable person, results revealed substantial variation of perceptions between police and judges on the one hand, and social psychologists and laypeople on the other. As a result, legal safeguards triggered by custodial interrogation may be inconsistently applied to real suspects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The new book by two prominent competition law thinkers Maurice E. Stucke (Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee) and Ariel Ezrachi (Professor of Law at the University of Oxford) 'Competition Overdose: How Free Market Mythology Transformed Us from Citizen Kings to Market Servants' (Harper Business, USA, 2020, pp. 402) has triggered a vivid discussion over the ever-fading question on the goals of competition law, economics and policy and – more broadly – on the very nature of the multifaceted phenomenon of competition. The previous blockbuster of the tandem 'Virtual Competition: The Promise and Perils of the Algorithm-Driven Economy' (2016) has generated vocal and diverse feedback, and the authors continue their market success with publishing another thought-provoking piece. The book provokes not only thoughts. From its very title, subtitle, name of chapters, normative position, methodological argumentation and the choice of preprint reviewers, across the selection of case studies and to its very writing style, the book is designed to generate discussion. And for the right reasons. The times when competition policy was perceived as an axiomatic, mathematised, highly technical and pretty much non-controversial area of Law & Economics have gone. Over the last decade, competition has become a great theme again. Full of ideological appeals and statements, mindful of their political pedigree, competition law, economics and policy are transitioning from the mechanistic field of microeconomic modelling to the real world of geopolitical chessboards.A quick look at the composition of the book, makes clear the authors' intention to transpose their well-established and highly influential academic reasoning from the narrow world of competition theorists to the broader and more diverse audience. The key objective of the book in this respect is to convince such broader societal circles of the need to reform competition policy – or rather to revise our perception of the very essence and the very mission of economic competition as such. The book is in several senses iconoclastic. As skilful diagnosticians, the authors reveal weakness after weakness of the market-centred ethics. The main cures offered by the book – both in terms of the normative propositions as well as the politicised vocabulary and intentionally approachable argumentative apparatus – will be appealing to many. The authors aim to raise (or perhaps to refine) the ethical dimension in the otherwise morally neutral phenomenon of economic competition and its regulation, and this book's objective and mission are remarkable in themselves. It is hard to find a reasonable person disagreeing with the normative premises of the book. It is much easier to find one disagreeing with the enforceability of these intentions. In what follows I’ll try to articulate ten polemical points, written as a reflection on the book. Only a few of these points express disagreement. All are written with deep and sincere respect to both authors – the Masters of the discipline. We agree on most of the things, disagreeing rather on nuances. I believe though that some of those nuances are important.

— Each year, hundreds of people in high-income countries take their own lives while they are in prison. Thousands engage in self-harm and thousands abuse other prisoners. Such behaviours often correlate with mental health problems, but they are also often pleas for help and for hope. Some courts have invoked the ideas of hope and the right to hope in the context of life imprisonment, but they have neither subjected the concept of hope to sustained analysis nor specified the role that hope should play in our practices of lawful punishment overall. This article offers a preliminary investigation of the role for hope in lawful punishment. It argues that one standard that both individual modes of punishment and overall systems of punishment must meet to be morally justifiable is that they be compatible with a reasonable person retaining hope both in the present and for his future after punishment. Such a hope standard narrows the scope of legitimate modes of punishment.

In a recent response to our paper on developing a philosophical framework to guide the design and delivery of a just health service, Sarela raises several objections. We feel that although Sarela makes points which are worthy of discussion, his critique does not undermine either the need for, or the worth of, our proposed model. First, the law does not negate the need for ethics in determining just healthcare policy. Reliance on legal processes can drive inappropriate focus on ensuring policies avoid judicial review, as opposed to ensuring they are truly just; the law affords protection against unjust policies but does not put a commitment to avoiding them at the heart of policy-making. We defend the need for Scanlonian supplementation by emphasising the practical value of adding a step based on reasonable rejection, particularly in ensuring that the views of vulnerable stakeholders are robustly considered. We discuss the similarities and differences between the work of Daniels and Sen in considering the relationship between health and opportunity, concluding that Sen’s capability approach is both valuable and compatible with our proposed model. Finally, the practical use of our model requires consideration of what constitutes a reasonable person. Our model is explicitly intended to help develop a healthcare system which is just to all its users. With this in mind, we suggest that those involved in decision-making should meet Scanlon’s definition of reasonable: they should be motivated to justify their actions to, and seek agreement with, others.

Legal standards of disclosure in a variety of jurisdictions require physicians to inform patients about the likely consequences of treatment, as a condition for obtaining the patient's consent. Such a duty to inform is special insofar as extensive disclosure of risks and potential benefits is not usually a condition for obtaining consent in non-medical transactions.What could morally justify the physician's special legal duty to inform? I argue that existing justifications have tried but failed to ground such special duties directly in basic and general rights, such as autonomy rights. As an alternative to such direct justifications, I develop an indirect justification of physicians' special duties from an argument in Kant's political philosophy. Kant argues that pre-legal rights to freedom are the source of a duty to form a state. The state has the authority to conclusively determine what counts as "consent" in various kinds of transactions. The Kantian account can subsequently indirectly justify at least one legal standard imposing a duty to inform, the reasonable person standard, but rules out one interpretation of a competitor, the subjective standard.

The article is devoted to the problem of Good Faith Subjects` status in law. For a better understanding of the problem, image ofgood faith subjects of law in Ancient Rome was analyzed. In particular, it was found that in roman law, the term bonus pater familias(good family father) refers to a standard of good faith subjects of law. In the English version, this concept was translated as «that of aman of ordinary prudence in managing his own affairs».The concept of a gentleman in the English legal tradition is specially studied.English noun ‘gentleman’ dates back to the Old French word ‘gentilz hom’ (graceful, refined man). That was why the social ca -te gory of gentleman is considered as “the nearest, contemporary English equivalent of the noblesse of France.” (Maurice Hugh Keen).Now, a gentleman is not just any man of good and courteous conduct, but a certain person having legal personality in accordancewith the standard of common law.In conformity with the dimension of public law, the English social category of gentleman captures a right of certen classe of theBritish nobility.But in accordance with modern private law the connotation of the term gentleman corresponds to the Rome legal institute ofbonus pater familias.The double origin of this term from the status of a knight and the social position of the merchant causes a controversial interpretationsof its meaning.In contemporary usage, the word gentleman is ambiguously defined, because “to behave like a gentleman” communicates as littlepraise or as much criticism as the speaker means to imply; thus, “to spend money like a gentleman” is criticism, but “to conduct a businesslike a gentleman” is praise (Walter Alison Phillips).In modern International Trade Law a gentleman is essentially a ‘man of sense’, ‘а man of judgment’ or a reasonable person.So United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980), The UNIDROIT Principles of InternationalCommercial Contract and the Principles of European Contract Law provided a rule, which offers an opportunity for such an interpretation.‘the contract is to be interpreted according to the meaning that reasonable persons of the same kind as the parties would giveto it in the same circumstances’.It led to the conclusion that the modern image of a good faith subject to the greatest extent actualizes the criterion of commonsense.

Cyberbullying has been defined as the “process of using the internet, cell phones or other devices to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person.” The word “cyberbullying” is often used interchangeably with “cyber stalking” and in fact the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 of Nigeria, uses the word “cyber stalking” which it defines as any course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear. By the provisions of the Act, the transmission of any communication through the means of a computer to bully, threaten or harass another person where such communication places another person in fear of death, violence or bodily harm amounts to cyber stalking. Cyberbullying is becoming a common phenomenon in Nigeria as more people engage in it especially on social media platforms. This is carried out in various ways and a common trend is posting indecent imagery of persons online such as naked pictures or videos of persons in order to humiliate them. When posted by a person, the communication is shared by others thereby causing circulation on social media. This act amounts to cyber stalking where the intention consists of those elements stated under the Cybercrimes Act. In other situations where it is shared without the aim of humiliating the victim, such act can still be incriminated under some other laws in Nigeria such as the Criminal Code Act and the Penal Code Act which for instance both criminalise obscene publications. It is worthy of note there have been reported cases where victims of cyberbullying have committed suicide as a result of fear or shame. A major observation is that cyberbullying has gained normalcy and many internet users engaged in it do not seem to be aware of the criminal connotation of their actions. This paper examines the effectiveness of legal responses to cyberbullying in Nigeria. It discusses the forms of cyberbullying commonly perpetrated in Nigeria by citing some real life instances that have happened in the past. The paper notes that most forms of cyberbullying can be prosecuted under the Cybercrimes Act, however, there has not been any notable enforcement of the law in terms of prosecution of cyberbullying cases. It appears that the lack of prosecution of offenders has fostered the act of cyberbullying especially under the present circumstances where there is widespread ignorance among internet users. The paper also notes that the absence of image rights is a precursor in many respects to some forms of cyberbullying especially when photographs and videos of victims are involved. The paper advocates the implementation and enforcement of the Cybercrimes Act as well as other laws relating to cyberbullying in Nigeria. The paper also posits that the protection of image rights will go a long way to assist in curbing the act of cyberbullying in Nigeria.

Liability for medical negligence in Australia follows the common law pattern, viz a plaintiff needs to prove duty, breach, and causation of damage which is not too remote. Australian law distinguishes sharply between two aspects of a doctor’s duty. On the one hand, diagnosis and treatment is governed largely by a standard of what is widely accepted by peer professional opinion by a significant number of respected practitioners in the field, as competent professional practice. On the other hand, doctors have a duty to advise of material risks. A risk is material if a reasonable person, in the patient's position, if warned of the risk, would be likely to attach significance to it or if the medical practitioner is, or should be, reasonably aware that the particular patient, would do so.

Supernatural belief does not sit easily with the law. Squaring such belief with legal concepts such as the reasonable person is a particularly vexing task (see S v Ngema 1992 (2) SACR 651 (D)). Nevertheless, it is necessary for the courts to take account of such belief as a fact of the South African society. Belief in witchcraft is an ongoing and widespread phenomenon, giving rise to the question whether such belief can play a role in exculpating, or mitigating the punishment of those who engage in criminal conduct as a consequence of such belief (see Van Blerk "Sorcery and Crime" 1978 CILSA 330; Bennett and Scholtz "Witchcraft: A Problem of Fault and Causation" 1979 CILSA 288; Motshekga "The Ideology Behind Witchcraft and the Principle of Fault in Criminal Law" 1984 Codicillus 4; Dhlodhlo "Some Views on Belief in Witchcraft as a Mitigating Factor" 1984 De Rebus 409; Van den Heever and Wildenboer "Geloof in Toorkuns as Versagtende Omstandigheid in die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg" 1985 De Jure 105; and Labuschagne "Geloof in Toorkuns: 'n Morele Dilemma vir die Strafreg" 1990 SACJ 246). A recurring problem for the courts is how to deal with the situation where a genuine belief in witchcraft provides the motivation for the killing of a suspected witch or wizard in order to protect or defend the interests of the accused or another person. Can such a belief mitigate punishment? This problem arose in the case of S v Latha (2012 (2) SACR 30 (ECG)).

The ‘reasonable person standard’ (RPS) is often called on in difficult legal cases as the last resource to be appealed to when other solutions run out. Its complexity derives from the controversial tasks that people place on it. Two dialectics require some clarification: the objective/subjective interpretation of the standard and the ideal/ordinary person controversy. I shall move through these dialectics from the standpoint of an EV (ethics of virtues) approach, assuming that on this interpretation the RPS can perform most persuasively its tasks. The all-round model of phronetic agent that I present not only works better than competing models—such as the utilitarian–economic and the Rawlsian—in the law of tort but shows its best potentialities in other kinds of cases. In criminal law and matrimonial law cases the recourse to the EV approach offers through the virtues rich and substantial resources to evaluate conflictual cases. This approach makes the threshold of evaluation much closer to real life than competitors.

Digital, El contrato atípico de servicios logísticos contiene prestaciones complejas diseñadas según el tráfico comercial. Empero, cuando surgen conflictos interpretativos los jueces recurren a criterios externos a la ecuación económica inicial. Esto puede llevar a consecuencias indeseadas. La presente investigación indaga por los límites de la filosofía kantiana para solucionar el problema. Se concluye que la igualdad puede ser un fundamento no utilitarista para la interpretación, pero sigue recurriendo a algo más que la voluntad. Al final, se propone el concepto de persona razonable, pues respeta la lógica comercial del negocio y al mismo tiempo es un método hermenêutico que resulta eficaz., The atypical logistics services contract contains complex services designed according to commercial traffic. However, when interpretative conflicts arise, the judges resort to criteria external to the initial economic equation. This can lead to unintended consequences. This investigation investigated the limits of Kantian philosophy to solve the problem. It is concluded that equality may be a non-utilitarian basis for interpretation, but it continues to resort to more than just the will. Finally, the concept of reasonable person is proposed, since it respects the commercial logic of the business and at the same time is a hermeneutical method that is effective., Ciencias Sociales, Derecho

Tort law’s intersection with the rights of members of minority and historically oppressed groups is complicated, and its status as an instrument for the advancement of rights tenuous. Tort law embraces a “reasonable person” analysis, with tort liability is circumscribed by the attitudes, impressions, beliefs, knowledge, and understanding of the fictional average member of “the community,” and reaches for majoritarian sensibilities to regulate human interaction. Tort law is also shaped by the common law process, and can be slow to evolve to changes in social structures, patterns of human relations, and the needs of members of growing minority groups that have not achieved dominant status. On the other hand, because of the evolving content of reasonableness and the common law process, tort law is equipped to change as society changes. This paper considers how tort law responded to a distinctive and powerful exogenous shock – the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 decision prohibiting the restriction of same sex marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges.

The standard of the reasonable person or its equivalent, in general, is used in many jurisdictions to determine fault in the form of negligence. Although the standard is predominantly objective it is also subjective in that the subjective attributes of the person against whom the standard applies as well as the subjective circumstances present at the time of the delict or tort lend themselves to an objective-subjective application. In South African law, before a person can be judged according to the standard of the reasonable person, the person must first be held accountable. If a person cannot be held accountable, then the standard does not apply at all. The general standard of the reasonable person cannot be applied to children, the elderly, persons with physical disabilities, persons with mental impairments or experts. Therefore, depending on the subjective attributes of the person against whom the standard is being applied, the standard may have to be adjusted accordingly. The general standard of the reasonable person would be raised when dealing with experts, for instance, and lowered when dealing with persons with physical disabilities. This contribution considers whether the current application of the standard of the reasonable person in South African law is satisfactory when applied generally to all persons, no matter their age, experience, gender, physical disability and cognitive ability. The application of the standard of the reasonable person in South African law is compared to the application of the standard of the reasonable person or its equivalent in the United Kingdom, the United States of America and France. Just as South African law applies the standard of the reasonable expert to experts, this contribution explores whether the South African law should be developed to use similar adjusted standards when dealing with children, the elderly, persons with physical disabilities and so on. The general standard of the reasonable person cannot be applied to children, the elderly, persons with physical disabilities, persons with mental impairments as well as experts. Thus depending on the subjective attributes of the person against whom the standard is being applied, the standard may have to be adjusted accordingly or if the person cannot be held accountable, not applied at all. The general standard of the reasonable person would for example be raised when dealing with experts and lowered when dealing with persons with physical disabilities. This contribution considers whether the current application of the standard of the reasonable person in South African law is satisfactory when applied generally, to all persons, no matter their age, experience, gender, physical disability and cognitive ability. The application of the standard of the reasonable person in South African law is compared to the application of the standard of the reasonable person or its equivalent in the United Kingdom, the United States of America and France. Just as South African law applies the standard of the reasonable expert to experts, this contribution explores whether the South African law should be developed to use similar adjusted standards when dealing with children, the elderly, persons' with physical disabilities and so on. [1] In French law bonus pater familias as three separate words is encountered (see para 3.4 below) whereas in South African law, bonus paterfamilias, as two separate words is encountered (see for example, Neethling and Potgieter Law of Delict 142-143). In this contribution, for the sake of uniformity and convenience, bonus pater familias as three separate words will be used.

Tort law has increasingly employed the rubric of the reasonable person in a variety of doctrinal domains. Many jurisdictions have rejected a differentiation of landowner duties according to the status of the entrant as trespasser, licensee, or invitee, and substituted a “reasonable person” test. Assumption of risk has been eliminated or greatly narrowed in favor of comparative fault, which asks simply whether the plaintiff failed to act as a reasonable person. The reasonable person plays a significant role even in intentional torts: apparent consent precludes liability when the defendant reasonably (though mistakenly) believes that plaintiff consented; putative self-defense precludes liability when the defendant reasonably (though mistakenly) believes facts that would establish that privilege; and offensive battery requires that the contact be offensive to a “reasonable” sense of dignity. What explains this widespread use of “reasonable person” tests? A desire for simplicity? The normative appeal of such a standard? Normative modesty about adopting a more controversial standard or about specifying more detailed rules? A concern to empower juries? Inertia or lazy thinking? Are such tests mainly descriptive (of ordinary conduct) or mainly idealized and prescriptive? In answering these questions, this paper argues that the hegemony of the reasonable person is sometimes a welcome but often an unwelcome development.

The revised Common Rule adopts the reasonable person standard to guide research disclosure. Some members of the research community contend that the standard is confusing and ill-suited to the research oversight system. Yet the revised rule is not as radical as it might seem. During the 1970s, judges started using the standard to evaluate negligence claims brought by injured patients who said doctors had failed to obtain informed consent to the harmful procedures. In its influential Belmont Report, the National Commission recommended application of a “reasonable volunteer standard” to guide IRBs evaluating research disclosures. Evidence also suggests that IRBs often invoke the reasonable person standard in deliberations about consent forms. But past application of the standard has been informal and uneven. Robust application of the reasonable person standard will require researchers and IRBs to learn more about what ordinary people want and need to know about the studies they are invited to join. Input from people with personal experience as study participants could be particularly useful to this effort.

Among various kinds of disclosures typically required in research as well as in clinical scenarios, risk information figures prominently. A key question is, what kinds of risk information would the reasonable person want to know? I will argue, however, that the reasonable person construct is and always has been incapable of settling this very question. After parsing the nebulous if not "contentless" character of the reasonable person, I will explain how Western courts have actually adjudicated cases of "negligent nondisclosure," that is, cases in which patient-plaintiffs allege that their informed consent rights were violated by the failure of their health providers to inform them of reasonably foreseeable risks that subsequently materialized. To support my argument, I will scrutinize the landmark decision by the United Kingdom's Supreme Court in Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board and, in particular, Justice Brenda Hale's concurrence.

In Title VII sexual harassment jurisprudence, U.S. courts use a 2-prong subjective-objective test to determine the viability of a sexual harassment claim: The complainant must show that the employer's conduct was unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment because of the complainant's sex from both the complainant's perspective (subjective prong) and a reasonable person's perspective (objective prong). This online study used a diverse national sample (361 MTurk Community Members) to investigate whether people apply the objective prong in a uniform manner, as the law assumes, or show predictable differences. Participants read a vignette about a female interviewee's allegations of sexual harassment following from severe, mild, or no sexual objectification by a male interviewer during a job interview. The interviewee claimed that she was either harassed or not by the interviewer during the interaction, as well as claiming to enjoy or reject sexualization. Participants made judgments about whether the interviewer's behavior was sexually harassing from the interviewee's and a reasonable person's perspective. Overall, participants' sex and enjoyment of sexualization moderated their judgments of sexual harassment when considering the situation from both points of view, demonstrating that there is no convergence on a unified standard for evaluating whether specific behavior is sexually harassing. Drawing comparisons to obscenity law, we argue that the use of data to form social fact evidence may help decision makers in hostile work environment cases to apply a more uniform understanding of what is hostile and abusive. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

In the field of Law and Literature studies, contributions on poetry are rare. This article focuses on a selection of contemporary poetic works: Cornelius Eady’s A Brutal Imagination (2001), Frédéric Boyer’s Le Goût du suicide lent (1999), Maurizio Cucchi’s Il disperso (1976) and Corrado Benigni’s Tribunale della mente (2012). Their lyrical shaping of law establishes a difference from the model of “forensic” poetry that can be found in Charles Reznikoff’s Testimony (1978–1979). Through them, this contribution shows how it is possible to challenge a reflection on the language of lyric poetry and that of law at the same time, if we interpret the lyric poetry as a non-narrative discourse., Law, Culture and the Humanities, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 229

The law of informed consent to medical treatment has recently been extensively overhauled in England. The 2015 Montgomery judgment has done away with the long-held position that the information to be disclosed by doctors when obtaining valid consent from patients should be determined on the basis of what a reasonable body of medical opinion agree ought to be disclosed in the circumstances. The UK Supreme Court concluded that the information that is material to a patient’s decision should instead be judged by reference to a new two-limbed test founded on the notions of the ‘reasonable person’ and the ‘particular patient’. The rationale outlined in Montgomery for this new test of materiality, and academic comment on the ruling’s significance, has focused on the central ethical importance that the law now (rightfully) accords to respect for patient autonomy in the process of obtaining consent from patients. In this paper, we dispute the claim that the new test of materiality articulated in Montgomery equates with respect for autonomy being given primacy in re-shaping the development of the law in this area. We also defend this position, arguing that our revised interpretation of Montgomery’s significance does not equate with a failure by the courts to give due legal consideration to what is owed to patients as autonomous decision-makers in the consent process. Instead, Montgomery correctly implies that doctors are ethically (and legally) obliged to attend to a number of relevant ethical considerations in framing decisions about consent to treatment, which include subtle interpretations of the values of autonomy and well-being. Doctors should give appropriate consideration to how these values are fleshed out and balanced in context in order to specify precisely what information ought to be disclosed to a patient as a requirement of obtaining consent, and as a core component of shared decision-making within medical encounters more generally.

This article compares two models of discharge for repudiation. The first – termed the “mirror image model” – has come to the fore only in recent years. It treats the applicable principles as the mirror image of those that govern discharge for failure to perform a contractual term. Under the second model – the “differentiated model” – repudiation is analysed in terms of various criteria that respond to conceptual diversity within the basis for discharge. The two models diverge, at the heart of the repudiation doctrine, when the issue is whether a reasonable person would regard the promisor as having refused to perform the contract. It is argued that the differentiated model is the better model, and also the preferred view of the common law.

This article argues that restrictions on expression based on ‘gross offensiveness’ or similar public morality notions embedded in speech offences are not and cannot be politically neutral and be evenly applied to political speech, no matter who is the author. Such concepts draw on a majoritarian perspective purporting to be reflective of unified base values of the ‘national community’. The article explores why such concepts of unacceptable speech are a poor fit for a deeply heterogeneous community, and all the more so on the internet, where those who engage in public discourse are even more numerous and more diverse in ethnic, cultural, political and social terms. Set against such a diverse speech landscape the prohibition of ‘gross offensiveness’, or what are considered the outer boundaries of acceptability, is repressive of minorities and of challenges to conventional opinions and existing power dynamics, and is liable to reinforce the very bigotry it seeks to relieve.

The reasonable man is the best known, but not the only, legal construct to be born into the nineteenth-century common law. This article introduces the man’s siblings - including those from the areas of trust law, criminal law, contract law, and intellectual property law (both patents and trademarks). The fact that some of these ‘men’ changed the law is not controversial this research further highlights that while several of these came to life in that century, only some had a significant role into the twentieth century. Those that did are tied to the foundations of our society through their role in facilitating innovation and consumer protection. The argument is that it was the constructs’ nature and their capacity to accommodate public policy issues that enabled the vitality of the ‘reasonable person’ (negligence) and the ‘person skilled in the art’ (patents).

Sports law can be regarded as one of the latest developments in law. As applied to the school setting, and with special reference to sport coaching, this article deals with the five fundamental elements of the law of delict that influence and inform the execution of the duty of care of the educator-coach. This article pays special attention to the legal aspects related to the security, on the one hand, of the learners as participants, but also the educator-coach in his or her respective roles as coach, organiser of sport events, referee and sport official on the other. The basic research question is: To what extent can educator-coaches increase their own security by ensuring safer participation of learners? How can these educators prevent or minimise the occurrence of serious injuries during practices (as coaches) and during meetings, contests or matches (as officials, such as being referees)? A certain amount of risk is typical of and inherent to most types of sports, especially those that involve physical contact or in which potentially dangerous implements are used. In contrast, many learners are coached by educators that do not necessarily have enough experience, skills or knowledge regarding the more advanced techniques of the specific sports code. This contrast between the inherent risks and the lack of expertise of many educator-coaches creates an amount of insecurity for both the participants and the coaches. This article includes a discussion of the application of the five fundamental elements of the South African law of delict to school sports coaching. To illustrate the ways in which courts consider sports law issues, examples from court cases related to different types of sports are analysed, and, where applicable, cases from other countries and from outside the sphere of education are also included. This discussion is followed by an overview of those legal provisions that impact on sports participation at school. The legal duty of care of all educators stems from the special relationship between an educator and a learner. Not acting to ensure the safety of a participant constitutes wrongfulness on the side of the educator-coach, which may lead to being held liable for damage to the participant. This article specifically considers the higher standard of care expected from the educator-coach, as compared to the normal reasonable person, based on the former's specific training in working with learners. The acts or omissions of higher qualified and more experienced educator-coaches will also be measured against a higher standard. This article concludes with the recommendation that educator-coaches should not be overly reassured by section 60 of the South African Schools Act . Ensuring the safety and security of learners should still be the main priority for all educators. Educatorcoaches should remember that, true to their calling as educators, and consistent with section 28(2) of the Constitution, a child's best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child. KEYWORDS: Delictual liability; school sports coach; education law; educator liability

Research demonstrates that people overestimate their ability to detect visual stimuli in a variety of contexts. These errors in visual metacognition have legal implications, as they may cause decision makers to misweigh evidence and misallocate responsibility. We describe 4 experiments that bridge the gap between lab studies of visual metacognition and 1 relevant legal context: negligence litigation. In the first 2 experiments, we expand on the existing visual metacognition research by demonstrating that participants’ overestimation persists when they are asked what an observer should see and what an observer can be blamed for failing to see. Then, we examine the extent to which participants treat their presumptions that someone should have seen a stimulus like evidence of verified visual detection. Finally, we use vignettes of negligence cases modeled on existing change blindness and inattention blindness research to drive home the potential legal consequence of visual metacognitive errors: defendants may be found negligent for failing to detect stimuli that the ordinary, reasonable person would not have seen.

A human body grows and changes but remains the same body. The same is true of other organisms, even though some transform dramatically. Metamorphosis is a poetic and mythological conceit of identity, change, and continuity. It applies just as well to the law of contract and helps us understand the power of the contract law canon and the conventional understanding of the legal history of contract. The ideas probably hold true for private law generally, but the focus is on Anglo-American contract law with a foray into Scots private law. Three aspects of mythology and metamorphosis are highlighted. First, the conventional understanding of legal history shapes what the law is. In the story of legal development, we see an implicit notion of progress — with missteps and complications of plot, but with the conviction that eventually the law, like any myth, will work itself out in a way that is right — not necessarily a way that is good but instead a way that fits with society. And in any system based on case law, this conventional understanding of legal development shapes the law itself. Second, the force of this conventional understanding is scarcely lessened by demonstrable falsity. Classic books, lectures, and cases illustrate the idea that historical inaccuracy is an insignificant check on the power of myth. Finally, myths consist not only of explanatory plotlines; they also draw on characters and settings that reflect and inspire the society they serve. Legal myths are no different. Understanding legal mythology requires an attentive ear and a sharp eye for the characters, as well as the storytellers. The reasonable man is not the same as the reasonable person (or is he — a metamorphosis?), and in any case is not the same as the bonus paterfamilias or bon pere de famille—the good father of the family, or good family man, the comparable figure of Roman and civil law. Setting matters as much: the heritage of kings and lords, and judges and Westminster Hall, makes for different offspring than that of Rome and Continental learning, of wise thinkers and treatise authors, of Parliament House and institutional writers. When law is understood as a humanistic and rhetorical discipline, the force of myth, in all its aspects, is only natural.

An essential element of the tort of negligence is the duty of care, which is measured by the objective standard of a reasonable person and does not take into account a defendant’s personal characteristics. In Dunnage v Randall, the Court of Appeal was tasked with deciding whether a person’s mental illness should be considered when defining the appropriate standard of care. The court held that the deceased, an undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who set himself on fire, was subject to the objective standard, breached his duty by failing to act with reasonable care and was therefore liable for the burns his nephew sustained while attempting to prevent the incident. The court further found that a defendant can only escape liability for negligently caused injury if their mental illness entirely eliminates responsibility, thus articulating a strict approach towards the liability in tort of persons suffering from mental illness. As this comment will discuss, the Dunnage decision is a handy illustration of the basic tenets of the tort of negligence, revealing the policy considerations at play and questioning the underlying rationale of the tort law regime.

One way in which fact finders are supposed to determine the reasonableness of a defendant is via a counterfactual test that personifies the reasonable person. We are to imagine the reasonable person being in the defendant’s circumstances. Then we are to determine whether the reasonable person would have done as the defendant did. This paper argues that, despite its prevalence, the counterfactual test is a hopeless guide to determining defendant reasonability. In brief, the test is of the wrong sort to give fact finders the requisite guidance. What we are after is not a counterfactual judgment (what the reasonable person would do) but instead is a question of possibility (what could the reasonable person do). However, since the only thing impossible of the reasonable person is being unreasonable, personifying the reasonable person cannot offer any useful guidance on this question.

U.S. constitutional tort law enables individuals to recover money damages in civil suits against government officials and employees whose job-related actions violate their constitutional rights. Such legal accountability closely relates to professional accountability because liability for damages depends on whether the officials or employees violated “clearly established … constitutional rights of which a reasonable person” in their positions “would have known.” Municipalities face financial liability in constitutional tort suits when their policies, including failure to train their employees, directly cause breaches of individuals’ constitutional rights. State and local government contractors involved in “state action” are also potentially liable for their constitutional torts. However, in a series of decisions in the 2000s, the Supreme Court has weakened constitutional tort law as a mechanism for securing accountability by making it more difficult or even impossible for those alleging infringeme...

Judges apply law to facts. While this‘umpire’ description of judicial decision-making is rhetorically (and often politically and publicly) attractive, it is of course a very incomplete account of judicial decision-making.1 Judges frequently experience factual ‘gaps’ they need to fill in order to reach a decision. Judge Richard Posner has recently suggested this is a very significant problem facing judges in the twenty-first century as the technological complexity of cases before courts exponentially increases.2 The judiciary, the legal profession, and the academy have failed to respond to the challenges of filling ‘gaps’ in the factual record, through the use of extra-legal knowledge from disciplines outside the law.3 Adjudicative facts,4 presented by the parties and admitted in accordance with the rules of evidence, are sometimes (and perhaps often) simply not enough to enable a judge to reach a decision. Legal standards, for example, the ‘reasonable person’ or the ‘best interests of the child’, may incorporate broad judicial discretion which requires judges to apply wider understandings of the nature of the world and society and how human beings behave. Adjudicative fact evidence may not have meaning without the application of a ‘lens’ or framework of broader knowledge (through expert evidence or knowledge of other disciplines).5 Judges may be unable to evaluate the veracity of forensic expert evidence6 without an understanding of whether there is actually a scientific basis for the relevant forensic claims; what processes must be followed to ensure the reliability of forensic testing; and what cognitive impact the particular ways of presenting forensic evidence to judges and juries may have on ultimate decision-making.7 The advent of the internet and social media means knowledge can be rapidly and extensively disseminated and accessed across the world. Yet, paradoxically, despite this the relationship between the law and knowledge from other disciplines, including science and social science, is at best uneasy and at worst counter-productive to just outcomes. We argue that the silos around law and other academic disciplines need to be broken down.8

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board concerned a negligent non-disclose of certain risks involved in natural birth. The Supreme Court departed from Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital, which formerly governed negligent risk disclosure. A new test was adopted: risks that are material must be disclosed, the materiality of a risk to be decided by reference to a reasonable person in the patient's position, or where the medical professional should be reasonably aware a particular patient is likely to attach significance to that risk. The Court emphasised risk disclosure practices must focus on what the patient wants to know. Yet the Court's portrayal of this change as a development of Sidaway is questionable. The decision is problematic in its engagement with precedent, the new test's future implications and statements regarding therapeutic privilege. Despite rejecting Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee's relevance to risk disclosure, this case is likely to remain relevant.

The paper aims to determine the situations when the air carrier is liable for the transmission of COVID-19 in the course of air transport. It must be emphasized here that the carrier's liability results from bodily injury or death that are caused by an accident on board an aircraft or during the operations of embarking or disembarking. Accordingly, in this paper, we addressed if the transmission of COVID-19 an ‘accident’ within the Conventions' meaning and the period of air carrier's liability for passengers' contraction of COVID-19, taking into consideration the exoneration of air carrier's liability in COVID-19 cases. In addition, this paper will study the scope of the safety measures as required by ICAO to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and therefore protect the passengers' safety. In our opinion, we found that the estimate is left to the judge because the assessment of this matter is based on an objective criterion based on the reasonable person test and the fact of each case.

Since the enactment of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and its requirement that victims and prosecutors make a showing of coercion under a reasonable person standard, an entire class of victims effectively became unprotected and no longer deemed victims. The inability to meet such a high burden not only produces a lower rate of successful criminal and civil prosecutions, but also—and most alarmingly—precludes many a victim’s participation in basic and highly needed governmental services, required both to cope with and recover from the trauma. The consequences are particularly egregious in the context of domestic servitude, where traffickers successfully rely on the prosecution’s inability to disprove consent. From the perspective of Policy-Oriented Jurisprudence, this article analyzes the conditioning factors leading to the adoption of the reasonable person standard in our trafficking legislation, all relevant judicial, legislative, and executive actions enforcing it. In addition, it criticizes the standard’s conceptual and practical limitations. In the interest of making our anti-trafficking regime better approximate a public order of human dignity and current international.

This PhD dissertation is about legal fictions in private law. A legal fiction, broadly, is a false assumption knowingly relied upon by the courts. The main aim of the dissertation is to formulate a test for which fictions should be accepted and which rejected. Subsidiary aims include a better understanding of the fiction as a device and of certain individual fictions, past and present. This research is undertaken, primarily, to establish a rigorous system for the treatment of fictions in English law – which is lacking. Secondarily, it is intended to settle some intractable disputes, which have plagued the scholarship. These theoretical debates have hindered progress on the practical matters which affect litigants in the real world. The dissertation is divided into four chapters. The first chapter is a historical study of common-law fictions. The conclusions drawn thereform are the foundation of the acceptance test for fictions. The second chapter deals with the theoretical problems surrounding the fiction. Chiefly, it seeks precisely to define ‘legal fiction’, a recurrent problem in the literature. A solution, in the form of a two-pronged definition, is proposed, adding an important element to the acceptance test. The third chapter analyses modern-day fictions and recommends retention or abolition for each fiction. In the fourth chapter, the findings hitherto are synthesised into a general acceptance test for fictions. This test, which is the thesis of this work, is presented as a flowchart. It is the author’s hope that this project will raise awareness as to the merits and demerits of legal fictions, de-mystify the debate and bring about reform.

The claim of “not guilty by reason of insanity,” or “NGRI,” is dramatized frequently in the media and popular social circles. However, it is actually quite rarer, and more difficult to uphold in court, than most outside of forensics may think. The classic “Yates Case” in Texas in 2001 brought much attention to the NGRI rulings that continue to emphasize the importance of untangling the mind at the time the wrongful act occurred, an always challenging task that we as forensic mental health experts are assigned to carry out. In similar fashion, the case you will see illustrated in this chapter details an unfortunate circumstance one healthcare provider found herself in when she suffered an injury at the hands of a patient. The assault itself is not in question, nor is the status of the individual’s present mental competence, but rather the mental state available to the defendant at the time of the event in question. As with many other cases, I may not know the legal outcome of the inquiry. Our job is to be highly analytical to arrive to an opinion and able to explain as best as possible what the diagnosis I may provide means, in simple terms that a court can use to instruct jurors with. It is in this capacity that I often find it most helpful to use basic language and phrases to convey the points I wish to make. We rely on the review of medical, including mental health records, police investigative reports, and legal guides and criteria before examining a defendant. Most importantly, I try to use evidence from the reports and documents I gather to help support the opinions I form and will cite them as much as possible when helping to bolster a report.

The autonomy of patients participating in research means that a proper informed consent process must take place. This means that information must be given according to a reasonable person standard implying what legally and ethical a reasonable person participating in the research would want to know. The research must assure that the patient has understood all the information given and that a voluntary choice has been made. This means that no form of coercion must take place and that information must not be manipulated in such a way as to influence the participant. No undue pressure or persuasion must either occur. Particular attention must be paid to vulnerable groups and participants must be competent and have the capacity to consent. Where necessary the use of a proxy to act on behalf of a patient who does not have legal capacity must be used and the best interests of the patient must be asserted. In research consent must always include a signed consent form which again is duly explained and authorized by the research ethics committee.

Greenblum and Hubbard argue that physicians are duty-bound by the constraints of Rawlsian ‘public reason’ to avoid engaging their patients’ religious considerations in medical decision-making.1 This position offers a number of appealing benefits to physicians. It will appear plausible because Rawls’s philosophical tradition of Political Liberalism enjoys the status of ideological orthodoxy in institutions tasked with forming the moral imaginations of physicians and other elites.2 3 It casts the physician in the role of a ‘reasonable person’ occupying the space of public reason whose medical and ethical judgments are opposed by ‘sectarian’ religious patients who refuse to be reasonable. This narrative authorises the exclusion of patient religious considerations from medical decision making when they do not ‘translate’ into reasons recognised by ‘reasonable’ medical professionals and manages the trauma of overwhelmed physicians by legitimising disengagement from difficult interactions with religious patients. The authors’ arguments depend on concepts from Rawls’s Political Liberalism 4 and are presented as if the premises of Liberal theory are incontestable—despite the fact that a large body of philosophical literature challenging its premises and core concepts has existed for decades.3 5–7 This ‘nothing to see here, move along’ approach saves more space for anecdotes about religious people, at which …

In March 2015, the Supreme Court published its decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, a case involving the failure to warn a pregnant diabetic woman of the risk of shoulder dystocia and the possibility of having a caesarean section to avoid this risk. The risk materialised and the baby suffered oxygen deprivation. The lower courts had applied the test for the standard of care that had been in place since 1985, which has been criticised for protecting doctors not patients. The Supreme Court has introduced a new, autonomy-based, patient-centred standard. This article examines the case and explains the importance of the change for future midwifery practice. When disclosing risks, midwives must identify what a reasonable person in the woman's position, with this woman's specific characteristics, would consider a significant risk. They could be held liable for non-disclosure even if the woman does not ask about specific risks.

In sexual harassment law scholarship, it is often argued that the reasonable person standard should give way to a reasonable victim (woman) standard. Yet, this latter standard may unintentionally invite homophobic employees to attempt to use a reasonable homophobe standard to charge gay supervisors with harassment merely for being openly gay at work. In response, I argue that we currently act on an unjustifiable distinction whereby we treat sexuality behavior (behavior that indicates one's sexuality) as necessarily sexualized only for GLBTQ behavior. By disallowing this discriminatory treatment, we can preserve the reasonable victim standard and undermine the homophobe's warrantless charges.

This paper compares the effects of a uniform reasonable person standard to a due care standard that is tailored to individual capabilities. This is done in a framework in which potential injurers can invest in developing greater capability. I show that the uniform reasonable person standard may induce better or worse investment incentives, depending on whether greater capability is represented by reduced precaution costs or reduced accident costs. In so doing, I show that recent results showing that the reasonable person standard creates better investment incentives are not general, but depend on the model of injurer capacity used. I go on to show the availability of “over-tailoring” of the negligence standard as a novel form of subsidy for investment in care technology. In some circumstances, holding an injurer to a lower standard of care than would be optimal in a perfectly static world can result in a trade-off between dynamic and static efficiency that is superior to that generated by either a uniform or tailored standard of care.

Every reasonable person agrees that employers shouldn't discriminate against job applicants because of their gender. Restaurants must not reserve seats for people of a certain race. Religious belie...

In any given context, negligence means that the defendant or the accused failed to foresee the possibility of harm (bodily/mental injury or death) occurring to another in circumstances where the reasonable person (diligens paterfamilias) in the defendant’s or accused position would have foreseen the possibility of harm occurring to another and would have taken steps to avoid or prevent it. The generic test for negligence is thus one of foreseeability and preventability. Although the test for negligence is fundamentally objective, it does contain subjective elements when the negligence of an expert is assessed. Where the defendant or accused is an expert, the standard of negligence is upgraded from the reasonable layperson to the reasonable expert. Where the expert is a medical practitioner, the standard is that of the reasonable medical practitioner in the same circumstances. It is to be noted that the standard of care and skill, in context of medical negligence, required of a general practitioner is to be distinguished from the standard and care and skill required of a medical specialist. Simply stated, if the physician is a general medical practitioner, the test is that of the reasonable general practitioner. If the physician is a specialist, the test is that of the reasonable specialist with reference to the specific field of medical specialisation. This principle is of particular significance as it has definite implications for the practice of medicine in a developing country as South Africa. Due to the shortages of medical services and qualified health care practitioners and/or compromised medical services, particularly in rural areas, health care practitioners (inclusive of doctors, nurses and paramedics) are often called upon to perform medical services for which they are, strictly speaking, not qualified to undertake – for example, a general practitioner in a small rural hospital may be required to administer anaesthesia to a patient despite not being a qualified anaesthetist; a nurse might be required to assist with the extraction of a tooth without being a dentist. The question arises, according to which yardstick they should be judged in instances of alleged negligence? The locality of practice and the imperitia culpae adnumeratur – rule are clearly also relevant factors in answering this question.In view of the aforesaid, it is the aim of this note to revisit the meaning and application of the maxim imperitia culpae adnumeratur and its possible link with conscious negligence (luxuria) in context of medical negligence. It is to be noted, for purposes of this discussion, that the test for medical negligence is exactly the same in civil law as it is in the criminal law – it makes no difference whether a medical practitioner is sued civilly for damages or by a patient who alleges that he has been negligently treated or is prosecuted by the state. The burden of proof in criminal cases though, is heavier than in civil cases since in the latter the plaintiff must only prove his case on a balance of probability, whereas in the former negligence must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The UK Supreme Court Montgomery judgment marks a decisive shift in the legal test of duty of care in the context of consent to treatment, from the perspective of the clinician (as represented by Bolam rules) to that of the patient. A majority of commentators on Montgomery have focused on the implications of the judgment for disclosure of risk. In this article, we set risk disclosure in context with three further elements of the judgment: benefits, options, and dialogue. These elements, we argue, taken together with risk disclosure, reflect the origins of the Montgomery ruling in a model of consent based on autonomy of patient choice through shared decision-making with their doctor. This model reflects recent developments in both law and medicine and is widely regarded (by the General Medical Council and others) as representing best practice in contemporary person-centred medicine. So understood, we suggest, the shift marked by Montgomery in the basis of duty of care is a shift in underpinning values: it is a shift from the clinician's interpretation about what would be best for patients to the values of (to what is significant or matters from the perspective of) the particular patient concerned in the decision in question. But the values of the particular patient do not thereby become paramount. The Montgomery test of duty of care requires the values of the particular patient to be balanced alongside the values of a reasonable person in the patient's position. We illustrate some of the practical challenges arising from the balance of considerations required by Montgomery with examples from surgical care. These examples show the extent to which Montgomery, in mirroring the realities of clinical decision-making, provides elbowroom for best practice in person-centred clinical care.

Defamation law offers a remedy when the plaintiff’s reputation is harmed by something the defendant publishes. At the heart of the action lies the question—what do the words complained about actually mean? The process of determining defamatory meaning depends heavily on what the court finds to be the imputations conveyed by the matter concerned to ‘ordinary, reasonable people’. The process relies on assumption and conjecture, rather than on evidence. This article examines how this process applied in the Hockey v Fairfax Media case brought by Australia’s former Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey against Fairfax Media, which presented a paradox—the court described the journalists’ articles concerned in glowing terms but still found for the plaintiff.