THE REASONABLE PERSON AND THE BIBLE
by Barbara Massie Mouly *
“ Negligence is the failure to use ordinary care . Ordinary care is the care a reasonable person would have used under the circumstances of this case .” 1 With these words or similar ones , a judge entrusts a jury with the task of determining whether a party to a negligence case has breached a duty of care for the safety of others .
The “ reasonable person ” standard is the centerpiece of negligence theory in the law of torts . The “ person ” described in the standard is the hypothetical person who takes “ ordinary care ” in the affairs of daily life . The failure to act reasonably constitutes a breach of the duty of care , which is negligent conduct . The use of the “ reasonable person ” standard in tort law presupposes that human nature is such that a person is capable of acting reasonably .
In some of the earliest English tort cases , liability was apparently assigned strictly on the basis that an actor had caused damages , without inquiry into the reasonableness of the actor ’ s conduct . 2 However , as tort law developed , liability was assigned on the basis that an actor ’ s negligent conduct had caused damages . By 1850 , an American court recognized that “ ordinary care ” was the standard for judging the conduct of an actor who had caused damages to another . 3
A reasonable person is one who employs reason in making decisions as to how careful to be in his daily life . Thousands of tort cases have been argued and decided on the question of what the reasonable person would have considered in making such decisions . In tort law , the hypothetical reasonable person will think about the risks of injury his conduct may create , and will adjust his conduct if the risks are too great .
A judge does not typically provide a jury with a definition of “ reasonable .” It is assumed that the jurors understand the meaning of the word . 4 However , some courts have attempted to isolate factors that can be used to judge the conduct of an actor . For example , in Chicago B . & Q . R . Co . v . Krayenbuhl , the court articulated that some of the factors are as follows : “ the probability of injury [ from an actor ’ s conduct ], the precautions necessary to prevent such injury , and the relations such precautions bear to [ the benefit derived from the actor ’ s conduct ].” 5 In United States v . Carroll Towing Co ., Judge Learned Hand suggested “ algebraic terms ” to help explain whether an actor had a specific duty of care in particular circumstances , the variables being : P , “ the probability of [ harm from an actor ’ s conduct ]”; L , “ the gravity of the resulting injury ;” and B , “ the burden of adequate precautions [ to prevent the harm ].” 6 If B were less than P multiplied by L , then the actor would be judged negligent . 7
The “ factors ” in the algebraic expression , as Judge Learned Hand asserted in a later opinion , “ are practically not susceptible of any quantitative estimate .” 8 A rigid attempt to quantify these factors could lead to grave error in the determination of tort duty . An attempt to quantify the loss of human life , for example , would devalue human life . 9
Because tort law has biblical foundations , it is appropriate to inquire into whether the Bible provides any guidance as to the rightness and wisdom of the reasonableness standard . As a starting place , the purpose of tort law , biblically , is to provide restitution for persons injured by others . The actor who caused the injury must pay the injured one for expenses such as lost wages and medical bills incurred because of the injury . Scripture indicates that the actor who caused the injury must provide for the injured one to be “ thoroughly healed .” 10
A biblical view of humanity includes the understanding that the human condition , including human thinking , is marred by humankind ’ s Fall and the resulting sin nature in every human being . Fallen humans , using flawed reason , can carry out and justify the worst kinds of evil . In light of the human condition , it might seem that the hypothetical “ reasonable person ” cannot be trusted .
Furthermore , a biblical view of humanity acknowledges that God ’ s thinking is not the same as human thinking . The Bible speaks of this difference as follows : “‘ For My thoughts are not your thoughts , nor are your ways My ways ,’ says the Lord . ‘ For as the heavens are higher than the earth , so are My ways higher than your ways , and My thoughts than your thoughts .’” 11 A biblical view of humanity thus includes the understanding that human thinking is limited because of our finitude .
However , this understanding of our fallen condition and our finitude would not necessarily disallow the reasonable person standard , as the hypothetical reasonable person is not perfect in judgment and conduct . Rather , the reasonable person simply uses “ ordinary care .” page 22 | LIBERTY LEGAL JOURNAL | SPRING / SUMMER 2016