1.

Huraikan bagaimana mahkamah memberikan ciri-ciri seorang yang munasabah dalam

sesuatu kes yang dibicarakan. Huraian hendaklah dibuat berpandukan kepada kes-kes
yang diputuskan.
(5 markah)
Before determining whether one is reliable for duty of care, the court must see
whether, the person’s actions would be equitable as what a reasonable man would do
during the particular situation.
According to Lord MacMillan in the case of Muir v Glasgow Corporation
1943 SC(HL) 3, the standard of foresight of the reasonable man is, in one sense, an
impersonal test. It eliminates the personal equation and is independent of the
idiosyncrasies of the particular person whose conduct is in question. Some persons are
by nature unduly timorous and imagine every path beset with lions. Others, of more
robust temperament, fail to foresee or nonchalantly disregard even the most obvious
dangers. The reasonable man is presumed to be free both from over-apprehension and
from over-confidence, but there is a sense in which the standard of care of the
reasonable man involves in its application a subjective element.
Apart from that, according to Chief Justice Shaw in Brown v. Kendall 60
Mass. 292 (1850) defined reasonable care as the care that a prudent and cautious man
would take to guard against probable danger. In many of the early negligence cases,
this is as specific as it gets in terms of a definition of reasonable care. However, even
this thin formulation is sufficient to convey some important ideas. The reasonable
person, it appears, will take probable losses to others into account and will modify his
conduct to avoid causing harm to other.
In conclusion, from the two cases above, we could determine that a reasonable
man is what a man who has the same degree of skills would do in the particular
situation after taking into consideration whether his actions may hurt others or not or
whether he could foresee the damages that might cause from his action.