Is It Reasonable To Be Unreasonable?

by Neil S. Siskind, Esq.               

               Our laws are intended to reflect the values of our society. Different states can have different laws that reflect their different values. Even local laws and ordinances can differ from those in other cities or towns within the same state or county to accommodate the priorities of one locality vs. another. 

               When establishing the legal standards in a society, we need to look at the fundamental needs of people, taking human nature and innate human behavior into consideration. To properly craft law, we need legislatures to recognize and consider people’s natural tendencies so that laws are able to realistically address human behavior. To use an example, we can’t regulate a water shortage by requiring people to limit their intake of water to a glass per day. Human fundamental needs would frustrate that law. No one could realistically be expected to meet the standard of that law. 

               In order to find that a person was negligent under the civil law, in all states it must be found that an injury resulted from his or her legally unreasonable behavior. If a person causes an injury while failing to act like a reasonable person, then that person can be held liable for that injury. But don’t we all act unreasonably? Put another way, isn’t it reasonable to act unreasonably since everybody does it? If the answer is yes, then aren’t we actually being reasonable when we act unreasonably?  And if so, how can there be laws against it? How can laws that punish people for acting in a way that is totally expected and that fail to account for the natural propensity of people be a reflection of any society’s values? Wouldn’t such laws themselves be unreasonable? 

               The answer is that it is a matter of balance and drawing lines. In order to maintain a civilized society, we balance the realities of human innate propensities with the need for people to be safe from harm. At some point a line has to be drawn between what people like to do and what they can be expected to do, and what they can be allowed to do. We all need to eat- but we can’t steal our neighbor’s food, no matter how good it smells and how hungry we are.  We all enjoy sexual relations with people to whom we are attracted, but it must be mutually consented to despite any natural instincts and desires. We all like to keep the money we make- but we can’t hide it from the government despite the need to feed our family and any inclinations toward greed that all people naturally have. We all like fast cars- but we’re not allowed to speed past allowed limits despite how natural it feels to do so. Law is a balance between human fundamental propensities and desires and maintaining a civilized society and the safety of the public at large. Negligence laws serve the same purposes. People are allowed to enjoy certain behaviors in certain places as part of individual freedoms, and can be liable (civilly or criminally) for other behaviors in other places if they cause harm to others in order to protect the larger society. As such, law accounts for the expectation of unreasonable behavior, but not for legally unreasonable behavior-known as negligence.  

              There Are Three Kinds of Unreasonable Behaviors:               

               All unreasonable behavior that leads to harm is not penalized by law. The law does not step in to punish people at every turn over a mistake or an accident. While the law correctly sets limits on unreasonable behavior that rises to the level of negligence, it also sets limits on where negligence will be found. This actually goes to show an acceptance by our legal system that people will act unreasonably. But we can delineate between a bad decision that conforms to reason, resulting in an accident, and one that does not conform to reason, resulting in legal negligence. 

               When it comes to injuries, there are three types of unreasonable behaviors recognized under the law:              

               1.       Acts which are not reasonable, but still commonly done by people;   
               2.       Acts which are not reasonable and not commonly done by people;
               3.       Acts that are unreasonable that are commonly done by others or done by many others along with you, but are inherently dangerous. 

               Here is an example where the defense would be that others commonly act in similar ways and where the act is foolish, but not inherently dangerous:  

               Bob was going 70 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour zone. He crashed and injured another driver. The accident was due to a wet road. Is Bob negligent? Well, there would be a good argument that going 70 in a 65 is illegal and irresponsible, but many people do it every day. This can be exhibited by all of the speeding tickets given out- not to mention those drivers that are not caught. In fact, many drivers are not caught because police have a higher threshold of speed violation before they pull a driver over since going just five miles over the limit is so common. Moreover, jurors may realize that 70 m.p.h. in a 65 m.p.h. zone is commonly done by others and themselves. It could be found that although Bob was acting in an unreasonable way, he was not unreasonable under the law, which means that he did not fail to act like other people act under the same or similar situations. Thus, this would be an accident and not negligence.              

                If Bob was going 20 miles per hour over the speed limit, then the result would be different.                         

               Here is an example where the complaint would be that there was an unreasonable act, but with no evidence that people commonly act this way:  

               Karen raises pit bull dogs. She believes that they are sweet dogs once you get to know them and that a few high-profile stories have given them a bad rap. She took five of her dogs to the local elementary school to run free after school hours. Two of her dogs bit and severally injured two children. It turns out that these dogs have bitten two of her neighbors in the past. If the children bring lawsuits for their injuries, Karen will likely be held liable where she had reason to know that these dangerous dogs have bitten people in the past and she still brought them to a place where children are playing and let them run free. This is not common behavior. This is negligent behavior.             

               Here is an example where others commonly acted the same way in the past and acted in the same way along with you, but the act is inherently dangerous:  

                Jack was drag-racing with 100 other people on Main Street. Teenagers are often drag racing on this same road. While racing, Jack’s car spins out of control and crashes, leading to an injury of another driver in a parked car on the road. The fact that others were racing on the road too, and, according to police reports, other teenagers like Jack race on this road often, would not provide a successful defense for Jack. Just because many people acted stupidly and dangerously one time or many times does not mean it is reasonable since drag-racing is inherently dangerous. Jack would likely be found to have been negligent.