Friday, February 04, 2005
The reasonable person standard flies out the window
In tort law, one of the foundations for recovery is what is called the "reasonable man" standard. This is the standard against which a Defendant's conduct will be measured to determine whether he will be held liable for damages. It holds that a Defendant will be liable for damages caused by his or her negligent acts if a reasonable man in similar circumstances would or should know of the potential for the sort of harm caused to the Plaintiff. For example, if P is driving down a neighborhood street at a high rate of speed and D backs out of a driveway and is hit, P can be held liable because a reasonable person in D's circumstances (i.e., driving too fast in a neighborhood) should have known that the type of damages he caused the Plaintiff was a foreseeable result of D's negligence (driving too fast for the circumstances).
This case, however, has turned the "reasonable person" standard on it's head. How is it foreseeable that simply knocking on someone's door at night might cause them so much anxiety that they would check themselves into the hospital the next day? How is delivering cookies to someone evidence of reckless disregard for the well being of another?
Sorry, but the Plaintiff here appears to be a nutjob, and this kind of case is evidence of how out of control our litigious society has become.
Sigh.
Comments:
<< Home
Well ... yeah ... but ...
10:30 is awfully late to be knocking on doors in any neighborhood and if you have a little old lady who worries about such things I can see why she'd get upset. You or I might not but then YOU'D have your Glock 9mm (you being a Rebpublican) and I'd have my ACLU card (me being a Democrat) for protection.
Also the judgement was, as I recall, limited to the $900 bill from the E.R.
Your point is correct, of course, we are far too litigious ... we should kill all the lawyers ... oh wait ...
Joe
Post a Comment
10:30 is awfully late to be knocking on doors in any neighborhood and if you have a little old lady who worries about such things I can see why she'd get upset. You or I might not but then YOU'D have your Glock 9mm (you being a Rebpublican) and I'd have my ACLU card (me being a Democrat) for protection.
Also the judgement was, as I recall, limited to the $900 bill from the E.R.
Your point is correct, of course, we are far too litigious ... we should kill all the lawyers ... oh wait ...
Joe
<< Home