text:
Reasonable person
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
For reasonable person in psychology, see Reasonable person model.
This section may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (November 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Criminal law
Elements
Actus reus
Mens rea
Causation
Concurrence
Scope of criminal liability
Complicity
Corporate
Vicarious
Severity of offense
Felony
Infraction (also called violation)
Misdemeanor
Inchoate offenses
Attempt
Conspiracy
Incitement
Solicitation
Offence against the person
Assassination
Assault
Battery
Bigamy
Criminal negligence
False imprisonment
Home invasion
Homicide
Kidnapping
Manslaughter (corporate)
Mayhem
Murder
corporate
Negligent homicide
Public indecency
Rape
Robbery
Sexual assault
Crimes against property
Arson
Blackmail
Bribery
Burglary
Embezzlement
Extortion
False pretenses
Fraud
Larceny
Payola
Pickpocketing
Possessing stolen property
Robbery
Smuggling
Tax evasion
Theft
Crimes against justice
Compounding
Malfeasance in office
Miscarriage of justice
Misprision
Obstruction
Perjury
Perverting the course of justice
Victimless crimes
Adultery
Apostasy
Buggery
Providing contraception information (Comstock law)
Dueling
Fornication
Gambling
Incest
Lewd and lascivious behavior
Exhibitionism
Creation of obscenity
Prostitution
Recreational drug use (including alcohol, when prohibited)
Sodomy
Suicide
Crimes against animals
Cruelty to animals
Wildlife smuggling
Bestiality
Defences to liability
Automatism
Consent
Defence of property
Diminished responsibility
Duress
Entrapment
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Infancy
Insanity
Justification
Mistake (of law)
Necessity
Provocation
Self-defence
Other common-law areas
Contracts
Evidence
Property
Torts
Wills, trusts and estates
Portals
Criminal justice
Law
v
t
e
Part of the common law series
Tort law
Intentional torts
Assault
Battery
False imprisonment
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Transferred intent
Property torts
Trespass
land
chattels
Conversion
Detinue
Replevin
Trover
Defenses
Assumption of risk
Comparative negligence
Contributory negligence
Consent
Necessity
Statute of limitations
Self-defense
Defense of others
Defense of property
Shopkeeper's privilege
Negligence
Duty of / standard of care
Proximate cause
Res ipsa loquitur
Calculus of negligence
Rescue doctrine
Duty to rescue
Negligent infliction of emotional distress
Employment-related
Entrustment
Malpractice
legal
medical
Liability torts
Product liability
Quasi-tort
Ultrahazardous activity
Nuisance
Public nuisance
Rylands v Fletcher
Dignitary torts
Defamation
Invasion of privacy
False light
Breach of confidence
Abuse of process
Malicious prosecution
Alienation of affections
Criminal conversation
Seduction
Breach of promise
Economic torts
Fraud
Tortious interference
Conspiracy
Restraint of trade
Liability and remedies
Last clear chance
Eggshell skull
Vicarious liability
Volenti non fit injuria
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Neutral reportage
Damages
Injunction
Conflict of tort laws
Joint and several liability
Comparative responsibility
Market share liability
Duty to visitors
Trespassers
Licensees
Invitees
Attractive nuisance
Other common law areas
Contracts
Criminal law
Evidence
Property
Wills, trusts, and estates
Law portal
v
t
e
In law, a reasonable person, reasonable man, or the man on the Clapham omnibus[1] is a hypothetical person of legal fiction crafted by the courts and communicated through case law and jury instructions.[2]
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.[1][3] 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.[4][5]
In some practices, for circumstances arising from an uncommon set of facts,[5] this person is seen to represent a composite of a relevant community's judgement 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.[6] 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.
The reasonable person belongs to a family of hypothetical figures in law including: the "right-thinking member of society," the "officious bystander," the "reasonable parent," the "reasonable landlord," the "fair-minded and informed observer," the "person having ordinary skill in the art" in patent law, and stretching back to Roman jurists, the figure of the bonus paterfamilias,[1] all used to define legal standards. While there is a loose consensus in black letter law, there is no accepted technical definition. As with legal fiction in general, it is somewhat susceptible to ad hoc manipulation or transformation, and hence the "reasonable person" is an emergent concept of common law.[3] The "reasonable person" is used as a tool to standardize, teach law students, or explain the law to a jury.[2]
As a legal fiction,[3] the "reasonable person" is not an average person or a typical person, leading to great difficulties in applying the concept in some criminal cases, especially in regards to the partial defence of provocation.[7] The standard also holds that each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances.[8][9] While the specific circumstances of each case will require varying kinds of conduct and degrees of care, the reasonable person standard undergoes no variation itself.[10][11] The "reasonable person" construct can be found applied in many areas of the law. The standard performs a crucial role in determining negligence in both criminal law—that is, criminal negligence—and tort law.
The standard is also used in contract law,[12] to determine contractual intent, or if a breach of the standard of care has occurred, provided a duty of care can be proven. The intent of a party can be determined by examining the understanding of a reasonable person, after consideration is given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the negotiations, any practices the parties have established between themselves, usages and any subsequent conduct of the parties.[13]
The standard does not exist independently of other circumstances within a case that could affect an individual's judgment.
Contents
1 History
2 Rationale
3 Hand Rule
4 Personal circumstances
4.1 Children
4.2 Mentally ill
4.3 Professionals
4.3.1 Medical professionals
4.3.2 Armed professionals
4.4 Inexperience
5 External circumstances
5.1 Emergency doctrine
5.2 Available resources
5.3 Negligence per se
6 Reasonable bystander
7 Reasonable person standard for victims
7.1 Reasonable woman
7.1.1 Sexual harassment
7.1.2 Satire
7.2 L'homme moyen sensuel
7.3 Qualifications
8 See also
9 References
9.1 Notes
9.2 Sources
History[edit]
In 1835, Adolphe Quetelet detailed the characteristics of l'homme moyen (French, "average man"). His work is translated into English several ways. As a result, some authors pick "average man", "common man", "reasonable man", or stick to the original "l'homme moyen". Quetelet was a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician and sociologist. He documented the physical characteristics of man on a statistical basis and discussed man's motivations when acting in society.[14]
Two years later, the "reasonable person" made his first appearance in the English case of Vaughan v. Menlove (1837).[15] In Menlove, the defendant had stacked hay on his rental property in a manner prone to spontaneous ignition. After he had been repeatedly warned over the course of five weeks, the hay ignited and burned the defendant's barns and stable and then spread to the landlord's two cottages on the adjacent property. Menlove's attorney admitted his client's "misfortune of not possessing the highest order of intelligence," arguing that negligence should only be found if the jury decided Menlove had not acted with "bona fide [and] to the best of his [own] judgment."
The Menlove court disagreed, reasoning that such a standard would be too subjective, instead preferring to set an objective standard for adjudicating cases:
The care taken by a prudent man has always been the rule laid down; and as to the supposed difficulty of applying it, a jury has always been able to say, whether, taking that rule as their guide, there has been negligence on the occasion in question. Instead, therefore, of saying that the liability for negligence should be co-extensive with the judgment of each individual, which would be as variable as the length of the foot of each individual, we ought rather to adhere to the rule which requires in all cases a regard to caution such as a man of ordinary prudence would observe. That was, in substance, the criterion presented to the jury in this case and, therefore, the present rule must be discharged.
English courts upheld the standard again nearly 20 years later in Blyth v. Company Proprietors of the Birmingham Water Works,[16] holding:
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
Rationale[edit]
American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. explained the theory behind the reasonable person standard as stemming from the impossibility of "measuring a man's powers and limitations."[17] Individual, personal quirks inadvertently injuring the persons or property of others are no less damaging than intentional acts. For society to function, "a certain average of conduct, a sacrifice of individual peculiarities going beyond a certain point, is necessary to the general welfare."[17] Thus, a reasonable application of the law is sought, compatible with planning, working, or getting along with others. As such, "his neighbors accordingly require him, at his proper peril, to come up to their standard, and the courts which they establish decline to take his personal equation into account."[17] He heralded the reasonable person as a legal fiction whose care conduct under any common set of facts, is chosen—or "learned" permitting there is a compelling consensus of public opinion—by the courts.[4][5]
The reasonable person standard is by no means democratic in its scope; it is, contrary to popular conception, intentionally distinct from that of the "average person," who is not necessarily guaranteed to always be reasonable.[18] The reasonable person will weigh all of the following factors before acting:
the foreseeable risk of harm his actions create versus the utility of his actions;
the extent of the risk so created;
the likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others;
any alternatives of lesser risk, and the costs of those alternatives.
Taking such actions requires the reasonable person to be appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. Such a person might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but whatever that person does or thinks, it is always reasonable.
The reasonable person has been called an "excellent but odious character."[19]
He is an ideal, a standard, the embodiment of all those qualities which we demand of the good citizen ... [he] invariably looks where he is going, ... is careful to examine the immediate foreground before he executes a leap or bound; ... neither stargazes nor is lost in meditation when approaching trapdoors or the margins of a dock; ... never mounts a moving [bus] and does not alight from any car while the train is in motion, ... uses nothing except in moderation, and even flogs his child in meditating only on the golden mean.[20]
English legal scholar Percy Henry Winfield summarized much of the literature by observing that:
[H]e has not the courage of Achilles, the wisdom of Ulysses or the strength of Hercules, nor has he the prophetic vision of a clairvoyant. He will not anticipate folly in all its forms but he never puts out of consideration the teachings of experience and so will guard against negligence of others when experience shows such negligence to be common. He is a reasonable man but not a perfect citizen, nor a "paragon of circumspection. ..."[21]
Hand Rule[edit]
Main article: Calculus of negligence
Under American common law, a well known—though nonbinding—test for determining how a reasonable person might weigh the criteria listed above was set down in United States v. Carroll Towing Co.[22] in 1947 by the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Learned Hand. The case concerned a barge that had broken her mooring with the dock. Writing for the court, Hand said:
[T]he owner's duty, as in other similar situations, to provide against resulting injuries is a function of three variables: (1) The probability that she will break away; (2) the gravity of the resulting injury, if she does; (3) the burden of adequate precautions.
While the test offered by Hand does not encompass all the criteria available above, juries in a negligence case might well still be instructed to take the other factors into consideration in determining whether the defendant was negligent.[23]
Personal circumstances[edit]
While the legal fiction[3] of the reasonable person represents the ideal human actor, one would be hard-pressed to characterize any individual human as meeting the standard, whether in whole or in part, all of the time. Since some human actors have limitations, the standard only requires that people act similarly to how "a reasonable person under the circumstance" would, as if their limitations were themselves circumstances. As such, courts require that the reasonable person be viewed as experiencing the same limitations as the defendant.
For example, a disabled defendant is held to a standard that, by necessity, represents how a reasonable person with that same disability would act.[24] One should not mistake this allowance for physical limitations as an allowance for poor judgment, attempting acts beyond one's abilities, or acting too quickly, etc. Were such allowances made for every defendant, there would be as many different standards for negligence as there were defendants; and courts would spend innumerable hours, and the parties much more money, on determining that particular defendant's reasonableness, character, and intelligence.
By using the reasonable person standard, the courts instead use an objective tool and avoid such subjective evaluations. The result is a standard that allows the law to behave in a uniform, foreseeable, and neutral manner when attempting to determine liability.
Children[edit]
One broad allowance made to the reasonable person standard is for children. The standard here requires that a child act in a similar manner to how a "reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience under like circumstances" would act.[25] In many common law systems, children under the age of 6 or 7 are typically exempt from any liability, whether civil or criminal, as they are deemed to be unable to understand the risk involved in their actions. This is called the defense of infancy: in Latin, doli incapax. In some jurisdictions, one of the exceptions to these allowances concern children engaged in what is primarily considered to be high-risk adult activity, such as operating a motor vehicle,[26][27] and in some jurisdictions, children can also be "tried as an adult" for serious crimes, such as murder, which causes the court to disregard the defendant's age.
Mentally ill[edit]
The reasonable person standard makes no allowance for the mentally ill.[28] Such a refusal goes back to the standard set in Menlove, where Menlove's attorney argued for the subjective standard. In the 170 years since, the law has kept to the legal judgment of having only the single, objective standard. Such judicial adherence sends a message that the mentally ill would do better to refrain from taking risk-creating actions, unless they exercise a heightened degree of self-restraint and precaution, if they intend to avoid liability.
Generally, the courts have rationed that by not accepting mental illness as a bar to recovery, a liable third party, in the form of a caregiver, will be more likely to protect the public because of the potential for liability. The courts have also stated that the reasoning behind the harsh treatment is because, unlike children or the physically disabled, members of the public are unable to identify a person with a mental illness.
Professionals[edit]
In cases where a human actor utilizes a professional skill set, the "reasonable person under the circumstances" test becomes elevated to a standard of whether the person acted how a "reasonable professional under the circumstances" would have, without regard to whether that actor is actually a professional, and further without regard to the degree of training or experience of that particular actor.[29] Other factors also become relevant, such as the degree to which the professional is educated (i.e., whether a specialist within the specific field, or just a general practitioner of the trade), and customary practices and general procedures of similar professionals. However, such other relevant factors are never dispositive.
Some professions may maintain a custom or practice long after a better method has become available. The new practices, though less risky, may be entirely ignored. In such cases, the practitioner may very well have acted unreasonably despite following custom or general practices.[30]
Medical professionals[edit]
In the realm of healthcare, plaintiffs must prove via expert testimony the standard of medical care owed and a departure from that standard. The only exception to the requirement of expert testimony is where the departure from accepted medical practices was so egregious that a layperson can readily recognize the departure.[31]
However, controversial medical practices can be deemed reasonable when followed by a respected and reputable minority of the medical field,[32] or where the medical profession cannot agree over which practices are best.[33]
Armed professionals[edit]
The "reasonable officer" standard is a method often applied to law enforcement and other armed professions to help determine if a use of force was correctly applied. The test is usually applied to whether the level of force used was excessive or not. If an appropriately trained professional, knowing what the subject of the investigation knew at the time and following their agency guidelines (such as a force continuum), would have used the same level of force or higher, then the standard is met. If the level of response is determined to be justified, the quantity of force used is usually presumed to have been necessary unless there are additional factors. For example, should it be determined that a trained police officer was justified in using deadly force against a suspect, the number of times he fired is presumed to have been necessary to stop the suspect's action that justified use of deadly force, as long as there aren't other factors, such as a reckless disregard of other officers' or bystanders' safety, or it is clearly proven that additional force was used after the suspect was no longer a threat.
Inexperience[edit]
When any person undertakes a skills-based activity that creates a risk to others, they are held to the minimum standard of how a reasonable person experienced in that task would act,[34] regardless of their actual level of experience.[27][35]
External circumstances[edit]
Factors external to the defendant are always relevant. Additionally, so is the context within which each action is made. It is within these circumstances that the determinations and actions of the defendant are to be judged. There are myriad factors that could provide inputs into how a person acts: individual perceptions, knowledge, the weather, etc. The standard of care required for each set of circumstances will vary, yet the level of care due is always what is reasonable for that set of circumstances.[36]
While community customs may be relied upon to indicate what kind of action is expected in light of given circumstances, such customary requirements are not themselves conclusive of what a reasonable person would do.[18][37]
It is precisely for this wide-ranging variety of possible facts that the reasonable person standard is so broad (and often confusing and difficult to apply). However, a few general areas of relevant circumstances rise above the others.
Emergency doctrine[edit]
Allowing for circumstances under which a person must act urgently is important to preventing hindsight bias from affecting the trier of fact. Given pressing circumstances, a reasonable person may not always act in a manner similar to how they would have acted in a more relaxed setting. As such, it is only fair that actions be judged in light of any exigent conditions that could have affected how the defendant acted.[38][39]
Available resources[edit]
In certain circumstances, human actors are faced with the problem of making do only with what is available. Such circumstances are relevant to any determination of whether the defendant acted reasonably. Where necessary resources are scarce, certain actions may be reasonable that would be unreasonable if those same resources were available and either readily at hand or realistically obtainable given other circumstances.
Negligence per se[edit]
Main article: Negligence per se
Because a reasonable person is objectively presumed to know the law, noncompliance with a local safety statute may also constitute negligence. The related doctrine of negligence per se addresses the circumstances under which the law of negligence can become an implied cause of action for breaching a statutory standard of care. Conversely, minimal compliance with a safety statute does not always absolve a defendant if the trier of fact determines that the reasonable person should have taken actions beyond and in excess of what the statute required.[40] However, if the trier of fact finds the statute's standard itself is reasonable and the defendant acted in accordance with what the statute contemplated, the duty of care can be deemed met.[41][42][43]
Reasonable bystander[edit]
Main article: Offer and acceptance
For common law contracts, disputes over contract formation are subjected to what is known as the objective test of assent in order to determine whether a contract exists. This standard is also known as the officious bystander, reasonable bystander, reasonable third party, or reasonable person in the position of the party.[44] This is in contrast to the subjective test employed in most civil law jurisdictions. The test stems from attempts to balance the competing interests of the judicial policies of assent and of reliability. The former holds that no person ought to be contractually obligated if they did not consent to such an agreement; the latter holds that if no person can rely on actions or words demonstrating consent, then the whole system of commercial exchange will ultimately collapse.[45]
Prior to the 19th century, courts used a test of subjective evaluation;[45] that is, the trier of fact determined each party's understanding.[46] If both parties were of the same mind and understanding on matters, then assent was manifested and the contract was valid. Between the 19th and 20th centuries, the courts shifted toward the objectivist test, reasoning that subjective testimony was often unreliable and self-serving.[45]
From those opposite principles, modern law has found its way to a rough middle ground, though it still shows a strong bias toward the objective test.[44] Promises and agreements are reached through manifestations of consent, and parties are liable for actions that deliberately manifest such consent; however, evidence of either party's state of mind can be used to determine the context of the manifestation if said evidence is reliable and compatible with the manifestation in question, though such evidence is typically given very little weight.[46]
Another circumstance where the reasonable bystander test is used occurs when one party has inadvertently misstated the terms of the contract, and the other party sues to enforce those terms: if it would have been clear to a reasonable bystander that a mistake had been made, then the contract is voidable by the party who made the error; otherwise, the contract is binding.
Reasonable person standard for victims[edit]
Reasonable woman[edit]
Sexual harassment[edit]
A variant of the reasonable person can be found in sexual harassment law as the reasonable woman standard. The variation recognizes a difference between men and women regarding the effect of unwanted interaction with a sexual tone. As women have historically been more vulnerable to rape and sex-related violence than have men, some courts believe that the proper perspective for evaluating a claim of sexual harassment is that of the reasonable woman. Notably, J. Scalia held that women did not have constitutional protection from discrimination under the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause, where by extension of logic, held the "reasonable woman" standard to be of moot value. However, such has not been the majority opinion of the court. [47]
Satire[edit]
Though the use of the reasonable woman standard has gained traction in some areas of the law, the standard has not escaped the crosshairs of humorists. In 1924, legal humorist A. P. Herbert considered the concept of the reasonable man at length in the fictional case of "Fardell v. Potts." In Herbert's fictional account, the judge addressed the lack of a reasonable woman standard in the common law, and ultimately concluded that "a reasonable woman does not exist."[48]
L'homme moyen sensuel[edit]
The concept of l'homme moyen sensuel does not speak of a reasonable person's ability, actions, or understandings. Rather it refers to the response of a reasonable person when presented with some form of information either by image or sound, or upon reading a book or magazine. A well-known application of the concept is Judge John M. Woolsey's lifting of the ban on the book Ulysses by James Joyce.[49] That ruling contemplated the effect the book would have upon a reasonable person of reasonable sensibility. Similarly, when the publisher of Howl and Other Poems was charged in California with publishing an obscene book, the concept of l'homme moyen sensuel influenced the court's finding of innocence.[50] It was nearly two decades after Woolsey that the US Supreme Court set down the standard by which materials, when viewed by l'homme moyen sensuel, were judged either obscene or not.[51] Generally, it has been l'homme moyen sensuel that has dictated what is and is not obscene or pornographic in books, movies, pictures, and now the Internet for at least the past 100 years.
Qualifications[edit]
Very often, for instance, in the case of noise ordinances, the enforcement of the law is only for the purpose of protecting the right of a "reasonable person of normal sensitivity".[52][53][54]
See also[edit]
Objective historian
Bonus pater familias
Casuistry
Contract
Gender discrimination
Jury instructions
Legal Fiction
Officious bystander
Reasonable doubt
Reasonable suspicion
Standard of care in English law
The man on the Clapham omnibus
Torts
References[edit]
Notes[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b c "Healthcare at Home Limited v. The Common Services Agency, [2014] UKSC 49" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. 30 July 2014. It follows from the nature of the reasonable man, as a means of describing a standard applied by the court, that it would be misconceived for a party to seek to lead evidence from actual passengers [i.e. "the right-thinking member of society," "the officious bystander," "the reasonable parent," "the reasonable landlord," "the fair-minded and informed observer,"...] on the Clapham omnibus as to how they would have acted in a given situation or what they would have foreseen, in order to establish how the reasonable man would have acted or what he would have foreseen. Even if the party offered to prove that his witnesses were reasonable men, the evidence would be beside the point. The behaviour of the reasonable man is not established by the evidence of witnesses, but by the application of a legal standard by the court. The court may require to be informed by evidence of circumstances which bear on its application of the standard of the reasonable man in any particular case; but it is then for the court to determine the outcome, in those circumstances, of applying that impersonal standard.
^ Jump up to: a b Regina v Smith , 4 AER 289 (2000) (“[sub-citing Camplin and Bedder:] the concept of the "reasonable man" has never been more than a way of explaining the law to a jury; an anthropomorphic image to convey to them, with a suitable degree of vividness, the legal principle that even under provocation, people must conform to an objective standard of behaviour that society is entitled to expect”).
^ Jump up to: a b c d Bedder v Director of Public Prosecutions , 1 WLR 1119 (1954) (“[where reasonable man is deemed a wholly impersonal fiction to which no special characteristic of the accused should be attributed]”).
^ Jump up to: a b Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (October 31, 1927). "Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66". United States Reports. Supreme Court of the United States. 275: 66. In an action for negligence, the question of due care is not left to the jury when resolved by a clear standard of conduct which should be laid down by the courts.
^ Jump up to: a b c Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1881). "Lecture III—D. Liability for unintended Harm is determined by what would be Blameworthy in Average man". The Common Law. Little, Brown and Company. pp. 108, 122–123. [Page 108] The standards of the law are standards of general application. The law takes no account of the infinite varieties of temperament, intellect, and education which make the internal character of a given act so different in different men ... [Page 122] the averment that the defendant has been guilty of negligence ... that his alleged conduct does not come up to the legal standard. ... the question whether the court or the jury ought to judge of the defendant's conduct is wholly unaffected by the accident, ... it is entirely possible to give a series of hypothetical instructions adapted to every state of facts which it is open to the jury to find. ... the court may still take their opinion as to the standard. ... [page 123] ...supposing a state of facts often repeated in practice, is it to be imagined that the court is to go on leaving the standard to the jury forever? ... if the jury is, on the whole, as fair a tribunal as it is represented to be, the lesson which can be got from that source will be learned.... the court will find ... the conduct complained of usually is or is not blameworthy, ... or it will find the jury oscillating to and fro, and will see the necessity of making up its mind for itself. There is no reason why any other such question should not be settled, as well as that of liability for stairs with smooth strips of brass upon their edges...
Jump up ^ R v Camplin , A.C. 705 (1978) (“[a reasonable man] "means an ordinary person of either sex, not exceptionally excitable or pugnacious, but possessed of such powers of self-control as everyone is entitled to expect that his fellow citizens will exercise in society as it is today”).
Jump up ^ "The Concept of the Reasonable Man in the Partial Defence of Provocation". 2015. Archived from the original on 18 May 2015. Retrieved 11 May 2015.
Jump up ^ Brown v. Kendall , 60 Mass. 292 (1850).
Jump up ^ Franklin, at 54
Jump up ^ Triestram v. Way , 281 N.W. 420 (Mich. 1938).
Jump up ^ Franklin, at 55
Jump up ^ For the use in transnational contract law: Trans-Lex.org
Jump up ^ JLonghitano. "Bruno Zeller". www.cisg.law.pace.edu. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
Jump up ^ "On Man, and the development of his faculties, The Athenæum, by A. Quetelet, Secretary to the Royal Academy of Brussels. London: Bossange & Co pp. 593-594, August 8 1835" (PDF). ucla.edu. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
Jump up ^ Vaughan v. Menlove , 132 ER 490 (Common Pleas 1837).
Jump up ^ Blyth v. Company Proprietors of the Birmingham Water Works , 156 ER 1047 (Exchequer 1856).
^ Jump up to: a b c Holmes, at 108.
^ Jump up to: a b The T.J. Hooper , 60 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1932).
Jump up ^ Herbert, at 12.
Jump up ^ Herbert, pp. 9-11.
Jump up ^ Business Law of Australia (Vermeesch & Lindgren) 4th Ed, 1983, p 1113
Jump up ^ United States v. Carroll Towing Co. , 159 F.2d 169 (2d. Cir. 1947).
Jump up ^ Glannon, at pg. 74.
Jump up ^ Hill v. Greenwood , 100 N.W. 522 (Iowa 1904).
Jump up ^ Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts. §283A
Jump up ^ Robinson v. Lindsay , 598 P.2d 392 (Wash. 1979).
^ Jump up to: a b Stevens v. Veenstra , 226 Mich. App. 441 (1997).
Jump up ^ Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co. , 173 N.W.2d 619 (Wis. 1970).
Jump up ^ Heath v. Swift Wings, Inc. , 252 S.E.2d 526 (N.C. 1979).
Jump up ^ Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority [1997] 4 All ER 771
Jump up ^ Heimer v. Privratsky , 434 N.W.2d 357 (N.D. 1989).
Jump up ^ Gala v. Hamilton , 715 A.2d 1108 (Pa. 1998).
Jump up ^ Furey v. Thomas Jefferson Uni. Hospital , 472 A.2d 1083 (Pa. 1984).
Jump up ^ Delair v. McAdoo , 188 A. 181 (Pa. 1936).
Jump up ^ Dellwo v. Pearson , 107 N.W.2d 859 (Minn. 1961).
Jump up ^ Stewart v. Potts , 654 A.2d 535 (Pa. 1995).
Jump up ^ Texas & Pacific Railway v. Behymer , 189 U.S. 468, 470 (1903).
Jump up ^ Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority , 77 N.Y.2d 332 (1991).
Jump up ^ Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts. §296
Jump up ^ Clinkscales v. Carver , 22 Cal.2d 72 (1934).
Jump up ^ Josephson v. Meyers , 429 A.2d 877 (Conn. 1980).
Jump up ^ Espinoza v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway , 649 N.E.2d 1323 (Ill. 1995).
Jump up ^ Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts. §288C
^ Jump up to: a b Blum, at pg. 53.
^ Jump up to: a b c Blum, at pg. 52.
^ Jump up to: a b Blum, at pg. 54.
Jump up ^ Terkel, Amanda (3 January 2011). "Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination". Retrieved 6 April 2018 – via Huff Post.
Jump up ^ Herbet, Alan Patrick, Sir (1989). Misleading Cases in the Common Law (4th ed.). Buffalo: William S. Hein & Co., Inc. ISBN 978-0-8377-2242-9.
Jump up ^ "US District Court S. NY, OPINION A. 110-59, by John M. Woolsey, December 6, 1933". virginia.edu. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
Jump up ^ "California v. Ferlinghetti". gmu.edu. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
Jump up ^ A tendency to deprave and corrupt, Washington Law Review Vol.85, No. 2, 2007 Archived 23 July 2012 at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ Bozeman, Montana Noise Ordinance
Jump up ^ "Blooming Grove, NY Noise Ordinance". bloominggrovepolice.com. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
Jump up ^ "Town of Romulus, NY Noise Ordinance" (PDF). romulustown.com. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
Sources[edit]
Blum, Brian A. (2004). Contracts (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Aspen Publishers. ISBN 0-7355-2612-5.
Franklin, Marc A. (2002). Torts (23rd ed.). Chicago, IL: The BarBri Group. ISBN 0-7355-6168-0.
Glannon, Joseph W. (2005). The Law of Torts (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Aspen Publishers. ISBN 0-7355-8480-X.
Herbert, A.P. (1932). "Misleading Cases in the Common Law" (7th ed.).
Miller, Alan & Perry, Ronen, The Reasonable Person, New York University Law Review
Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr. (1909). The Common Law (2nd ed.). Little, Brown. ISBN 0-674-14605-0.
"Reasonable woman". West's Encyclopedia of American Law. The Gale Group, Inc. 1998. Retrieved 1 December 2008.
"Prudent Lay Person". The Complete Reference to the Prudent Lay Profession. 2015. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
hide
v
t
e
Law
Core subjects
Administrative law
Constitutional law
Contract
Criminal law
Deed
Equity
Evidence
International law
Law of obligations
Procedure
Civil
Criminal
Property law
Public law
Restitution
Statutory law
Tort
Other subjects
Agricultural law
Aviation law
Banking law
Bankruptcy
Commercial law
Competition law
Conflict of laws
Construction law
Consumer protection
Corporate law
Cyberlaw
Election law
Energy law
Entertainment law
Environmental law
Family law
Financial law
Financial regulation
Health law
Immigration law
Intellectual property
International criminal law
International human rights
International slavery laws
Labour
Law of war
Legal archaeology
Legal fiction
Maritime law
Media law
Military law
Probate
Estate
Will and testament
Product liability
Public international law
Space law
Sports law
Tax law
Transport law
Trust law
Women in law
Sources of law
Charter
Constitution
Custom
Divine right
Human rights
Natural and legal rights
Case law
Precedent
Law making
Ballot measure
Codification
Decree
Edict
Executive order
Proclamation
Legislation
Delegated legislation
Regulation
Rulemaking
Promulgation
Repeal
Treaty
Statutory law
Statute
Act of Parliament
Act of Congress (US)
Legal systems
Civil law
Common law
Chinese law
Legal pluralism
Religious law
Canon law
Hindu law
Jain Law
Jewish law
Sharia
Roman law
Socialist law
Statutory law
Xeer
Yassa
Legal theory
Critical legal studies
Comparative law
Feminist
Law and economics
Legal formalism
History
Natural law
International legal theory
Principle of legality
Rule of law
Sociology
Jurisprudence
Adjudication
Administration of justice
Criminal justice
Court-martial
Dispute resolution
Fiqh
Lawsuit/Litigation
Legal opinion
Legal remedy
Judge
Justice of the peace
Magistrate
Judgment
Judicial review
Jurisdiction
Jury
Justice
Practice of law
Attorney
Barrister
Counsel
Lawyer
Legal representation
Prosecutor
Solicitor
Question of fact
Question of law
Trial
Trial advocacy
Trier of fact
Verdict
Legal institutions
Bureaucracy
The bar
The bench
Civil society
Court
Election commission
Executive
Judiciary
Law enforcement
Legal education
Law school
Legislature
Military
Police
Political party
Tribunal
Category
Index
Outline
Portal
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reasonable_person&oldid=837632982"
Categories:
Common law
Criminal law
Tort law
Law of negligence
English legal terminology
Scots law
American legal terminology
Elements of crime
Legal fictions
Legal doctrines and principles
Sexual harassment in the United States
Legal reasoning
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template wayback links
Wikipedia articles that are too technical from November 2016
All articles that are too technical
Articles needing expert attention from November 2016
All articles needing expert attention
Use dmy dates from September 2010
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Dansk
עברית
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 22 April 2018, at 01:31 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

attrs: class href

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

values: Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable

value: i

value: small

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-style ambox-technical

values:
/wiki/Public_indecency
mw-redirect
Public indecency

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%;border-collapse:collapse; border-spacing:0px; border:none; width:100%; margin:0px; font-size:100%; clear:none; float:none

values:
/wiki/Comstock_law
mw-redirect
Comstock law

values:
/wiki/Trusts_and_estates
mw-redirect
Trusts and estates

values: Negligent infliction of emotional distress

values:
/wiki/Bonus_paterfamilias
mw-redirect
Bonus paterfamilias

values:
/wiki/Negligence_(law)
mw-redirect
Negligence (law)

values: checkbox button toctogglecheckbox toctogglecheckbox display:none

values:
/wiki/Law_of_England_and_Wales
mw-redirect
Law of England and Wales

values:
/wiki/Vaughan_v._Menlove
mw-redirect
Vaughan v. Menlove

values:
/wiki/Objective_standard
mw-redirect
Objective standard

values:
/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr.
mw-redirect
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

values:
/wiki/Subjective_standard
mw-redirect
Subjective standard

values:
/wiki/Force_continuum
mw-redirect
Force continuum

values: Edit section: Reasonable person standard for victims

values: L'homme moyen sensuel (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Noise_ordinance
mw-redirect
Noise ordinance

values:
/wiki/Objective_historian
mw-redirect
Objective historian

values:
/wiki/Gender_discrimination
mw-redirect
Gender discrimination

values: width: 33.33%;text-align: left; vertical-align: top;

values:
/wiki/Legal_Fiction
mw-redirect
Legal Fiction

values:
/wiki/Standard_of_care_in_English_law
mw-redirect
Standard of care in English law

values: border-collapse: collapse; padding: 0; border: 0; background:transparent; width:100%;

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.quentsons.com/provocation

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.trans-lex.org/902000

values:
/wiki/Heath_v._Swift_Wings,_Inc.
mw-redirect
Heath v. Swift Wings, Inc.

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
external text
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1883208

values:
/wiki/Executive_order_(disambiguation)
mw-disambig
Executive order (disambiguation)

values:
navbox-abovebelow hlist
2
text-align:center;

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner mw-collapsible mw-made-collapsible

values: Category:Sexual harassment in the United States

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical from November 2016

values: Category:All articles that are too technical

values: Category:Articles needing expert attention from November 2016

values: Category:All articles needing expert attention

values: Category:Use dmy dates from September 2010

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Reasonable_person
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: האדם הסביר – Hebrew

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Reasonable_person rootpage-Reasonable_person skin-vector action-view


text:
Jay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
For other uses, see Jay (disambiguation).
Jay
Eurasian jay, the original 'jay' after which all others are named
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Aves
Order: Passeriformes
Family: Corvidae
Genera
Garrulus
Podoces
Ptilostomus
Perisoreus
Aphelocoma
Gymnorhinus
Cyanocitta
Calocitta
Cyanocorax
Cyanolyca
Jays are several species of medium-sized, usually colorful and noisy, passerine birds in the crow family, Corvidae. The names jay and magpie are somewhat interchangeable, and the evolutionary relationships are rather complex. For example, the Eurasian magpie seems more closely related to the Eurasian jay than to the East Asian blue and green magpies, whereas the blue jay is not closely related to either.
Contents
1 Systematics and species
1.1 Old World ("brown") jays
1.2 Grey jays
1.3 American jays
2 In culture
2.1 Slang
3 References
4 External links
Systematics and species[edit]
Jays are not a monophyletic group. Anatomical and molecular evidence indicates they can be divided into an American and an Old World lineage (the latter including the ground jays and the piapiac), while the gray jays of the genus Perisoreus form a group of their own.[1] The black magpie, formerly believed to be related to jays, is classified as a treepie. The crested jay (Platylophus galericulatus) is traditionally placed here, but its placement remains unresolved; it does not seem to be a corvid at all.[1]
Old World ("brown") jays[edit]
Eurasian jay, Garrulus glandarius
Lanceolated jay, Garrulus lanceolatus
Lidth's jay, Garrulus lidthi
Henderson's ground jay, Podoces hendersoni
Biddulph's ground jay, Podoces biddulphi
Pleske's ground jay, Podoces pleskei
Grey ground jay, Podoces panderi
Piapiac, Ptilostomus afer
Grey jays[edit]
Siberian jay, Perisoreus infaustus
Sichuan jay, Perisoreus internigrans
Gray jay, Canada jay, or whiskeyjack Perisoreus canadensis
American jays[edit]
Florida scrub jay, Aphelocoma coerulescens
Island scrub jay, Aphelocoma insularis
California scrub jay, Aphelocoma californica
Woodhouse's scrub jay, Aphelocoma woodhouseii
Transvolcanic jay, Aphelocoma ultramarina
Mexican jay, Aphelocoma wollweberi
Unicolored jay, Aphelocoma unicolor
Pinyon jay, Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus
Steller's jay, Cyanocitta stelleri
Blue jay, Cyanocitta cristata
Black-throated magpie-jay, Calocitta colliei
White-throated magpie-jay, Calocitta formosa
Tufted jay, Cyanocorax dickeyi
Black-chested jay, Cyanocorax affinis
Green jay, Cyanocorax ynca
Brown jay, Cyanocorax morio
Bushy-crested jay, Cyanocorax melanocyaneus
San Blas jay, Cyanocorax sanblasianus
Yucatan jay, Cyanocorax yucatanicus
Purplish-backed jay, Cyanocorax beecheii
Purplish jay, Cyanocorax cyanomelas
Azure jay, Cyanocorax caeruleus
Violaceous jay, Cyanocorax violaceus
Curl-crested jay, Cyanocorax cristatellus
Azure-naped jay, Cyanocorax heilprini
Cayenne jay, Cyanocorax cayanus
Plush-crested jay, Cyanocorax chrysops
White-naped jay, Cyanocorax cyanopogon
White-tailed jay, Cyanocorax mystacalis
Black-collared jay, Cyanolyca armillata
Turquoise jay, Cyanolyca turcosa
White-collared jay, Cyanolyca viridicyana
Azure-hooded jay, Cyanolyca cucullata
Beautiful jay, Cyanolyca pulchra
Black-throated jay, Cyanolyca pumilo
Dwarf jay, Cyanolyca nana
Silvery-throated jay, Cyanolyca argentigula
White-throated jay, Cyanolyca mirabilis
In culture[edit]
Slang[edit]
The word jay has an archaic meaning in American slang meaning a person who chatters impertinently.[2][3]
The term jaywalking was coined in 1915 to label persons crossing a busy street carelessly and becoming a traffic hazard.[4] The term began to imply recklessness or impertinent behavior as the convention became established.[5]
In January 2014, Canadian author Robert Joseph Greene embarked on a lobbying campaign among ornithologists in Europe and North America to get Merriam-Websters Dictionary to have a "Jabber of Jays" as an official term under bird groups.[6][7]
References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b Ericson, Per G. P.; Jansén, Anna-Lee; Johansson, Ulf S.; Ekman, Jan (May 2005). "Inter-generic relationships of the crows, jays, magpies and allied groups (Aves: Corvidae) based on nucleotide sequence data". Journal of Avian Biology. 36 (3): 222–234. doi:10.1111/j.0908-8857.2001.03409.x. http://www.nrm.se/download/18.4e32c81078a8d9249800021299/Corvidae%5B1%5D.pdf PDF fulltext
Jump up ^ "Jay". freedictionary.com. An overly talkative person; a chatterbox.
Jump up ^ "Definition of Jay by Merriam-Webster". Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Jump up ^ "Definition of Jaywalker by Merriam-Webster". Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Jump up ^ "jay-walker". Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. September 2005. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
Jump up ^ "Writer lobbies for new word to describe jays". Vancouver Courier. January 2, 2014. Retrieved January 2, 2014.
Jump up ^ "British Ornithologists' Union: What say ye countrymen to a jabber of jays?". Community News. January 6, 2014. Retrieved January 6, 2014.

External links[edit]
Jay videos on the Internet Bird Collection
Texts on Wikisource:
"Jay". Collier's New Encyclopedia. 1921.
"Jays". Encyclopedia Americana. 1920.
"Jay". The New Student's Reference Work. 1914.
Newton, Alfred (1911). "Jay". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.).
"Jay". New International Encyclopedia. 1905.
Newton, Alfred (1881). "Jay". Encyclopædia Britannica. 13 (9th ed.).
show
v
t
e
Extant species of family Corvidae
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Aves
Subclass: Neornithes
Superorder: Neognathae
Order: Passeriformes
show
Family Corvidae
Choughs
Pyrrhocorax
Alpine chough (P. graculus)
Red-billed chough (P. pyrrhocorax)
Treepies
Crypsirina
Hooded treepie (C. cucullata)
Black racket-tailed treepie (C. temia)
Dendrocitta
Andaman treepie (D. bayleyi)
Bornean treepie (D. cinerascens)
Grey treepie (D. formosae)
Black-faced treepie (D. frontalis)
White-bellied treepie (D. leucogastra)
Sumatran treepie (D. occipitalis)
Rufous treepie (D. vagabunda)
Platysmurus
Black magpie (P. leucopterus)
Bornean black magpie (P. l. aterrimus)
Temnurus
Ratchet-tailed treepie (T. temnurus)
Oriental
magpies
Cissa
Common green magpie (C. chinensis)
Indochinese green magpie (C. hypoleuca)
Bornean green magpie (C. jefferyi)
Javan green magpie (C. thalassina)
Urocissa
Taiwan blue magpie (U. caerulea)
Red-billed blue magpie (U. erythrorhyncha)
Yellow-billed blue magpie (U. flavirostris)
Sri Lanka blue magpie (U. ornata)
White-winged magpie (U. whiteheadi)
Old World jays
Garrulus
Eurasian jay (G. glandarius)
Lanceolated jay (G. lanceolatus)
Lidth's jay (G. lidthi)
Podoces
(Ground jays)
Biddulph's ground jay (P. biddulphi)
Henderson's ground jay (P. hendersoni)
Pander's ground jay (P. panderi)
Persian ground jay (P. pleskei)
Ptilostomus
Piapiac (P. afer)
Stresemann's
bushcrow
Zavattariornis
Stresemann's bushcrow (Z. stresemanni)
show
Family Corvidae (continued)
Nutcrackers
Nucifraga
Spotted nutcracker (N. caryocatactes)
Clark's nutcracker (N. columbiana)
Holarctic
magpies
Pica
Black-billed magpie (P. hudsonia)
Yellow-billed magpie (P. nuttalli)
Eurasian magpie (P. pica)
Oriental magpie (P. sericea)
Maghreb magpie (P. mauritanica)
Asir magpie (P. asirensis)
Black-rumped magpie (P. bottanensis)
True crows
(crows, ravens,
jackdaws and rooks)
Corvus
Australian and Melanesian species
Little crow (C. bennetti)
Australian raven (C. coronoides)
Bismarck crow (C. insularis)
Brown-headed crow (C. fuscicapillus)
Bougainville crow (C. meeki)
Little raven (C. mellori)
New Caledonian crow (C. moneduloides)
Torresian crow (C. orru)
Forest raven (C. tasmanicus)
Grey crow (C. tristis)
Long-billed crow (C. validus)
White-billed crow (C. woodfordi)
Pacific island species
Hawaiian crow (C. hawaiiensis)
Mariana crow (C. kubaryi)
Tropical Asian species
Daurian jackdaw (C. dauuricus)
Slender-billed crow (C. enca)
Flores crow (C. florensis)
Large-billed crow (C. macrorhynchos)
Eastern jungle crow (C. levaillantii)
Indian jungle crow (C. culminatus)
House crow (C. splendens)
Collared crow (C. torquatus)
Piping crow (C. typicus)
Banggai crow (C. unicolor)
Violet crow (C. violaceus)
Eurasian and North African species
Mesopotamian crow (C. capellanus)
Hooded crow (C. cornix)
Carrion crow (C. corone)
Rook (C. frugilegus)
Jackdaw (C. monedula )
Eastern carrion crow (C. orientalis)
Fan-tailed raven (C. rhipidurus)
Brown-necked raven (C. ruficollis)
Holarctic species
Common raven (C. corax)
North and Central American species
American crow (C. brachyrhynchos)
Northwestern crow (C. caurinus)
Chihuahuan raven (C. cryptoleucus)
Tamaulipas crow (C. imparatus)
Jamaican crow (C. jamaicensis)
White-necked crow (C. leucognaphalus)
Cuban crow (C. nasicus)
Fish crow (C. ossifragus)
Palm crow (C. palmarum)
Sinaloan crow (C. sinaloae)
Tropical African species
White-necked raven (C. albicollis)
Pied crow (C. albus)
Cape crow (C. capensis)
Thick-billed raven (C. crassirostris)
Somali crow (C. edithae)
show
Family Corvidae (continued)
Azure-winged
magpies
Cyanopica
Iberian magpie (C. cooki)
Azure-winged magpie (C. cyanus)
Grey jays
Perisoreus
Grey jay (P. canadensis)
Siberian jay (P. infaustus)
Sichuan jay (P. internigrans)
New World jays
Aphelocoma
(Scrub jays)
California scrub jay (A. californica)
Island scrub jay (A. insularis)
Woodhouse's scrub jay (A. woodhouseii)
Florida scrub jay (A. coerulescens)
Transvolcanic jay (A. ultramarina)
Unicolored jay (A. unicolor)
Mexican jay (A. wollweberi)
Calocitta
(Magpie-Jays)
Black-throated magpie-jay (C. colliei)
White-throated Magpie-jay (C. formosa)
Cyanocitta
Blue jay (C. cristata)
Steller's jay (C. stelleri)
Cyanocorax
Black-chested jay (C. affinis)
Purplish-backed jay (C. beecheii)
Azure jay (C. caeruleus)
Cayenne jay (C. cayanus)
Plush-crested jay (C. chrysops)
Curl-crested jay (C. cristatellus)
Purplish jay (C. cyanomelas)
White-naped jay (C. cyanopogon)
Tufted jay (C. dickeyi)
Azure-naped jay (C. heilprini)
Bushy-crested jay (C. melanocyaneus)
Brown jay (C. morio)
White-tailed jay (C. mystacalis)
San Blas jay (C. sanblasianus)
Violaceous jay (C. violaceus)
Green jay (C. ynca)
Yucatan jay (C. yucatanicus)
Cyanolyca
Silvery-throated jay (C. argentigula)
Black-collared jay (C. armillata)
Azure-hooded jay (C. cucullata)
White-throated jay (C. mirabilis)
Dwarf jay (C. nana)
Beautiful jay (C. pulchra)
Black-throated jay (C. pumilo)
Turquoise jay (C. turcosa)
White-collared jay (C. viridicyana)
Gymnorhinus
Pinyon jay (G. cyanocephalus)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jay&oldid=854042022"
Categories:
Corvidae
Jays
Birds by common name
Hidden categories:
Articles with 'species' microformats
Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from Collier's Encyclopedia
Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the Encyclopedia Americana with a Wikisource reference
Wikipedia articles incorporating citation to the NSRW
Wikipedia articles incorporating citation to the NSRW with an wstitle parameter
Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with Wikisource reference
Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the New International Encyclopedia
Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from EB9
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Afrikaans
Ænglisc
العربية
Brezhoneg
Cymraeg
Deutsch
Esperanto
Français
Gaeilge
Ido
עברית
Norsk nynorsk
پنجابی
Português
Русский
Simple English
Tagalog
Türkçe
9 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 8 August 2018, at 15:29 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

attrs: href class title

values:
/wiki/Jay_(disambiguation)
mw-disambig
Jay (disambiguation)

attrs: role class

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

value: p

value: th

attrs: colspan style

value: tr

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

value: td

attrs: href title

values: min-width:15em; text-align: center; background-color: rgb(235,235,210)

values: text-align: left; width: 200px; font-size: 100%

values:
/wiki/Cissa_(magpie)
mw-redirect
Cissa (magpie)

values: checkbox button toctogglecheckbox toctogglecheckbox display:none

values:
/wiki/Lanceolated_jay
mw-redirect
Lanceolated jay

values:
/wiki/Grey_ground_jay
mw-redirect
Grey ground jay

values: -moz-column-width: 25em; -webkit-column-width: 25em; column-width: 25em;

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Jay

values:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: s:The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Jays

values: Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition

values: s:The New International Encyclopædia/Jay

values: s:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Jay

values:
*_Kingdom:_Animalia
*_Phylum:_Chordata
*_Class:_Aves
*_Subclass:_Neornithes
*_Superorder:_Neognathae
*_Order:_Passeriformes

values:
/wiki/Black_racket-tailed_treepie
mw-redirect
Black racket-tailed treepie

values:
/wiki/Black-faced_treepie
mw-redirect
Black-faced treepie

values: Zavattariornis row navbox-group width:9em

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-subgroup mw-collapsible mw-collapsed mw-made-collapsible

values:
/wiki/Corvus_(genus)
mw-redirect
Corvus (genus)

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible collapsed navbox-inner mw-collapsible mw-collapsed mw-made-collapsible

values: Category:Articles with 'species' microformats

values: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from Collier's Encyclopedia

values: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the Encyclopedia Americana with a Wikisource reference

values: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating citation to the NSRW with an wstitle parameter

values: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with Wikisource reference

values: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the New International Encyclopedia

values: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from EB9

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Jay
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values:
/w/index.php?title=Jay&action=edit
Edit this page [ctrl-alt-e]
e

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values:
https://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaai
Gaai – Afrikaans
af
af
interlanguage-link-target

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-br
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-cy
display: none;

values:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrulus
Garrulus – German
de
de
interlanguage-link-target

values:
https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garolo
Garolo – Esperanto
eo
eo
interlanguage-link-target

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-eo
display: none;

values:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geai
Geai – French
fr
fr
interlanguage-link-target

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-ga
display: none;

values:
https://io.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeo
Jeo – Ido
io
io
interlanguage-link-target

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-io
display: none;

values: עורבני – Hebrew

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-he
display: none;

values:
https://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skrikjer
Skrikjer – Norwegian Nynorsk
nn
nn
interlanguage-link-target

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-nn
display: none;

values: Сойки (значения) – Russian

values:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay
Jay – Simple English
simple
simple
interlanguage-link-target

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-simple
display: none;

values:
interlanguage-link interwiki-tl
display: none;

values:
https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alakarga
Alakarga – Turkish
tr
tr
interlanguage-link-target

values: All languages (initial selection from common choices by you and others)

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Jay rootpage-Jay skin-vector action-view