The Reasonable Person Rule is used as a tool in legal proceedings. The rule can establish standards and interpretation of an individual’s version of a specific action. As I researched some actual cases that included the use of the rule, I found it to be commonly used in cases that involve the accusation of negligence. I copied the following from Wikipedia. Other groups explanations and descriptions are too complicated for my simple mind.
In law, a reasonable person, reasonable man, or the man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical person of legal fiction who is ultimately an anthropomorphic representation of the body care standards crafted by the courts and communicated through case law and jury instructions.
Strictly according to the fiction, it is misconceived for a party to seek evidence from actual people in order to establish how the reasonable man would have acted or what he would have foreseen. This person’s character and care conduct under any common set of facts, is decided through reasoning of good practice or policy—or “learned” permitting there is a compelling consensus of public opinion—by high courts.
Why couldn’t we apply this rule to a litany of issues and stories in our world today?
Roy Moore maintains that he did not have an inappropriate relationship with any girl or young lady at anytime in his past. With 6 woman accusing him of the doing so, as well as the number of people who vouch for them, wouldn’t a reasonable person be led to believe that at least one of the accusers claims are credible?
Today, the Republican party in all three branches are using their majority status to introduce a tax bill that most likely doesn’t favor the average American. Since they are trying to proceed by taking their versions for a vote without any input from the Democrats or the American people, wouldn’t a reasonable person be lead to believe that they fear the bill would never be signed into law if they were to follow the established process? Couldn’t the same be applied to healthcare repeal?
Is it also possible for a reasonable person to believe that the Democrats may not have a viable alternative for tax reform?
In the case of healthcare, wouldn’t a reasonable person support the legislative efforts of Patty Murray a democrat and Lamar Alexander, a republican, relative to their bi-partisan pursuit of a plan that does not include the financial suffering and exclusion in the bills that their individual parties are trying to peddle?
With regard to the Russian investigation, wouldn’t a reasonable person be compelled to believe that based on all of the information in the media plus the obvious deception and deflection, there has to be some truth to theory that the Trump administration was involved?
In the case of the testimony from people like Jeff Sessions, wouldn’t a reasonable person believe that by them saying that they didn’t recall to every specific and important question they are actually showing a deliberate effort to lie or deceive?
You get the idea. If you look at relatively recent history, there are examples of similar situations that have played out by the accused eventually coming clean and accepting responsibility. David Letterman, for examplewas accused of having sexual relationships with coworkers and colleagues. He eventually admitted his wrong, apologized and asked for forgiveness. His viewers accepted his discretions at face value and moved on. If I didn’t bring it up, how many people would even remember him for what happened? The same goes for Bill Clinton’s escapades and Rush Limbaugh’s pain killer addiction.
It may be a stretch, but it did get me thinking.