Reasoning
My mother asked me what I was learning in law school. Despite the fact I devote huge amounts of time to studying, I couldn’t think of a thing to say.
But here’s one thing I learned: It's good to be reasonable.
There’s a saying, “What would Jesus do?” Christians are supposed to evaluate their actions by that standard. The law evaluates people’s actions by a standard too. But instead of Jesus, their standard in determining negligence is a “reasonable person.” Would a reasonable person have acted that way?
This is not what’s reasonable for you. For example, because I’m sensitive to sounds, I flip out if I’m exposed to prolonged loud noises. I would consider it reasonable to take a baseball bat and smash to smithereens whatever is making that noise. But the legal standard is NOT what’s reasonable to me. I have to conform to that Reasonable Person, who, surprisingly enough, probably is not inclined to smash things with bats no matter how annoying.
If I’m sound sensitive, mentally challenged, given to fits of rage, inexperienced or really old, the law doesn’t care. In deciding if what I did was negligent, it just compares me to Ms. Reasonable Person. There are a couple of exceptions, of course. (Absolutes are not allowed in law school!) If I have a physical handicap, like blindness, then I get compared to Ms. Reasonable Person Who Happens to Be Blind.
Children are another exception. Kids don’t have to be Reasonable People either. (Parents of young teenagers will confirm that!) Instead, the standard used for children is what’s reasonable for a child that age.
I don’t know what a Reasonable Person would think of all this. But it sounds about right to me.
