How Do ‘Reasonable’ People Act?

By Cindy Reitzi
Madison substitute teacher

There’s a saying that the best things we can give children are roots and wings.

When educators and parents worry about how to prepare children for the future, they are, consciously or not, wondering how to bequeath these two gifts. One of the things that fosters a grounded sense of security, intellectual competence, and the capacity to take “flight” surprisingly comes from the same mental source: imagination. Imaginative thinking allows children to project an optimistic future for themselves. At the same time, it is a tool to use in some of their future professions.

While uses of imagination have a “warm and fuzzy” reputation, some unexpected professions have imagination embedded into their theory and practice. Let’s take law, for example. As an imaginative concept, I was intrigued by the legal question, “What would a reasonable person do?,” and asked my lawyer friend, Todd, to explain it to me.

The “reasonable person” idea comes from negligence law, the branch of law where individuals or companies sue for damages because they’ve been harmed in some way. The legal definition of negligence using the “reasonable person” standard is “a departure from a standard of conduct demanded by the community for the protection of others against unreasonable risk.” * In legitimate negligence cases, real harm, real people, and real, often large, sums of money are involved. Yet, a central tenet of negligence law requires the practice of imagination.

Imagination is central to negligence law in two ways: First, to avoid being sued or found liable of negligence, we’re expected to imagine the foreseeable consequences of our actions.

Second, if there is a negligence trial, then lawyers, judges, and juries must imagine a fictional, “reasonable person” in order to determine negligence, i.e. whether an individual or company is liable for harming others.

According to Todd, the formulation goes like this: courtrooms must decide what a reasonable person would do to prevent harm in certain circumstances and determine if the defendant acted as a “reasonable person” to actually prevent harm.

If you are a plaintiff in a negligence suit, you must prove three things to determine negligence:

• That the defendant had a “duty” toward you. A duty is created if you can anticipate that someone will be harmed by your actions.
  
• That the defendant breached that duty by failing to take reasonable precautions based on the “reasonable person” standard.
  
• That this breach of duty caused harm.
  

The defense wins if it disproves any of these three provisions.
Where does this fascinating idea come from and how did it become part of American law? Interestingly, the “reasonable person” idea stems from English common law. Common law is not a legal code, but is social custom that has evolved into a legally enforceable standard of socially acceptable practice. The social belief behind the “reasonable person” tenet is that we have an ethical duty not to do things to harm others when we can anticipate the harm and reasonably prevent it.

Part of this duty is the notion of “foreseeability” – if we can foresee
possible harm to others from our actions, we have a duty to take reasonable precautions. When parents anticipate dangerous objects, outlets, and appliances and “babyproof” in order to safeguard their children, they are practicing “foreseeability.”

The classic example of “foreseeability” involves a private pool in a neighborhood with children. If we are “reasonable people,” the thinking goes, we will “foresee” that neighborhood children will be tempted to swim in the pool without adult supervision, which is dangerous. What would a “reasonable person” do? A “reasonable person” would put a fence around the pool or yard to prevent children from sneaking into the pool and potentially drowning.

If we can learn lessons from this imaginative and interestingly ethical component of American law it is that we need to imagine the consequences of our own actions and take responsibility for them. We need to do this as educators, and we need to help instill this concept into the minds of our students.

We’ve all have had students who have difficulty understanding that actions have consequences.

We need to help them understand that in an orderly society, we must all act as a “reasonable person” and take our duty not to harm others seriously.

That includes such seemingly simple responsibilities as not disrupting a class. Students must use their imagination to project ahead and see the consequences of their action. If they make disruptive noises in class, they are harming other students’ ability to learn, and they may be subjecting themselves to discipline. Conversely, if they study hard and follow rules, they will position themselves for future success. As a “reasonable person,” he or she expected to think this through.

Ultimately, it is learning to use our imagination in a productive way. It is roots and wings.

* From: Restatement (Second) of Torts, 1965, Section 283.