Question

There has been a substantial increase in recent years of the number of lawsuits over negligence. Do you think many of these truly pass the “Reasonable Person” doctrine or not? Is this a positive direction for the Unites States to be heading? Please provide examples from your own experience and/or current events.

Answer 1

No; most of these lawsuits don’t pass such doctrine.

The doctrine indicates hypothetically establishing a person who has average thinking ability of applying common sense and concept for any act. Based on such person’s thinking, most of the negligence lawsuits are vague and misleading the actual facts which could be observed through common sense. These are all those cases where defenders are trapped.

This is not at all a positive move; rather, a negative move. Based on the data of number of such lawsuits people may think that Americans are not caring, they neglect others; such thinking may create adverse situation in terms of business dealing, cultural exchange, etc.

Example:

“A” filed a suit against “B” that the latter didn’t take fire-preventive measure properly in his house and because of his negligence fire occurred that damages A’s house.   

The actual fact is different here based on the reasonable person’s thinking. A fire occurred and it damages B’s house first and then A’s house. Therefore, this is not a deliberate action of B; the person B must have taken preventive measure to stop spreading fire; in this way he can save his house as well. Therefore, there is no negligence from his part.