Scots law and the 'reasonable and prudent man' test?

There is in US jurisprudence a 'reasonable and prudent man' test which is used to determine if an individual should have forseen the consequences of an action. Is this a US concept, or is it taken from English common law or prior law in the UK?

it is derived from English 'common law'. there are variations, bu the most famous is "the man on the Clapham omnibus" - a mythical person who peceives the relevent facts and has an opinion.

the 'reasonable and prudent man' is a variation and the requirement for prudence is probably a reference to the reasonable investor/business person. it sounds like a term from 'due diligence' in the performance of a duty.

'reasonableness' is an amazingly big legal topic and you can find people who have devoted their careers to defining it.

I once had a case due to be heard in the House of Lords on the question of the meaning of the word 'likely'. Before trial, a piece of legislation was passed that made defining the meaning unnecessary, so funding was pulled.

Shame that.

Lewis

Lewis: Thanks and a happy holiday season to you and yours. I've spent many happy times in the Stratford and Coventry area around Christmas.

Just a modest suggestion, as I fear I may be in danger of speaking latin before the clerics. But I do remember clearly my grandfather, a worthy late C19/early C20 Glasgow solicitor, emphasizing to me that the reasonable man doctine was much more prominent and developed in Scots than in English law. It seems to have a longer and perhaps more continuously traceable pedigree than the famous Clapham omnibus even if it was horse-drawn. Given the strong influence on American institutiosn of late C18 scots and (linked) continental thought and institutions, including powerful transmission of ideas through the "common sense" philosophers, I wonder whether English common law is the only or even the most appropriate place to seach for a pedigree of this concept in US law?