The law is often seen as the great equalizer-a system designed to be impartial, objective, and fair. Yet, beneath the surface of its most fundamental doctrines, the law reveals the fingerprints of those who shaped it. Nowhere is this more evident than in the “reasonable man” standard, a cornerstone of the law of evidence and negligence. But why did lawmakers enshrine the test of the “reasonable man,” and not the “reasonable woman”? Is it truly possible for one standard to fit all, or does this reveal a deeper, more troubling bias within our legal tradition?
The Birth of the “Reasonable Man”
The concept of the “reasonable man” emerged in the 19th century, most notably in the English case of Vaughan v Menlove (1837), where it was decided that a person’s conduct should be judged not by their own idiosyncrasies, but by the standard of an ordinary, prudent man. This was intended to create an objective yardstick-one that would prevent subjective excuses from undermining justice.
But the very notion of what is “reasonable” is shaped by the values, experiences, and expectations of those who define it. In Victorian England, lawmakers, judges, and jurors were overwhelmingly male, and so the “reasonable man” was not just a figure of speech-it was a reflection of male norms, perspectives, and priorities.
The Case of Fardell v Potts: A Revealing Example
The case of Fardell v Potts is instructive. Here, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether a woman’s conduct should be judged by the same objective standard as a man’s. Mrs. Fardell, the defendant, was held to the same “reasonable man” test as any male defendant. The court made no allowances for her gender, social role, or the different expectations society might have placed upon her.
This was not an isolated incident. Throughout legal history, women have been judged by standards devised without their input, often by men who could not-and did not try to-imagine what it meant to be a woman in their society. The law’s claim to neutrality was, in truth, an erasure of difference.
The Myth of Gender Neutrality
As the law evolved, the language shifted from “reasonable man” to “reasonable person.” On the surface, this appears progressive-a recognition that reasonableness is not the sole province of men. But this linguistic sleight of hand does little to address the deeper issue: the “reasonable person” is stil, in practice, modeled on the reasonable man. The values, experiences, and judgments considered “ordinary” remain those of the dominant group.
This is not mere semantics. In cases of sexual harassment, for instance, courts have long struggled to apply the “reasonable person” standard. What a man considers harmless banter, a woman might experience as threatening or demeaning. In such cases, the “reasonable woman” standard has been advocated and, in some jurisdictions, adopted-an acknowledgment that gender shapes perception, experience, and, ultimately, what is reasonable.
Why Was the “Reasonable Woman” Never Considered?
The answer lies in history. For centuries, women were excluded from the legal profession and from positions of power. The lawmakers, judges, and jurors who shaped the law’s standards were men, and they saw their own experiences as universal. The “reasonable man” was not just a legal fiction; he was the embodiment of the lawmaker himself.
Moreover, the law has always prized uniformity and predictability. Introducing multiple standards-one for men, one for women, perhaps others for different groups-was seen as a threat to legal certainty. But this quest for simplicity came at a cost: it rendered invisible the realities of those who did not fit the mold.
The Call for Change
Today, we recognize that objectivity is not the same as neutrality. A standard that ignores difference is not impartial-it is blind. The law must grapple with the fact that what is reasonable for one person may not be reasonable for another, especially when their lives are shaped by different social expectations, risks, and constraints.
The “reasonable woman” standard is not about special pleading; it is about justice. It is about recognizing that the law’s standards must be rooted in the lived realities of all people, not just those who have historically held power. As society becomes more diverse, the law must evolve to reflect that diversity-not by abandoning objectivity, but by enriching it.
Conclusion: Toward a Truly Reasonable Standard
Fardell v Potts and countless other cases reveal the limitations of a one-size-fits-all approach. The law’s insistence on the “reasonable man” standard is a relic of a less inclusive era. To move forward, we must ask: Whose reasonableness are we measuring? Whose experiences are we privileging? And what would it mean to build a legal system that truly sees, hears, and judges us all?
The time has come to move beyond the reasonable man-and even the reasonable person-toward a standard that is genuinely reflective of our shared humanity, in all its diversity. Only then can the law fulfil its promise of justice for all.
Justice N.Anand Venkatesh Judge Madras High Court
