2. REASONABLENESS
(1) Reasonable Person
(b) Knowledge
HNE-12 Intelligence.
HNE-12 Intelligence. Everyone is required by negligence law to possess a certain modicum of intelligence. Stupid individuals must answer for their foolish ways to their victims, even though they may be forgiven by their Maker.1 The awkward and the accident-prone must make good any losses they produce.2 The reasonable person is presumed to possess neither over-apprehension nor over-confidence.3
Common knowledge. A reasonable person must know certain common things, for example, that fire burns, knives cut and heavy objects fall when dropped.4 It should be realized that animals can get into mischief,5 that defective equipment6 and open excavations are dangerous,7 and that snow and ice may fall off a roof.8 Any prudent person must foresee the hazard of explosives,9 blowtorches,10 hot rivets11 and poison.12
Need to expand knowledge. A reasonable person need not be aware of esoteric matters,13 but as human knowledge expands, the esoteric may become the commonplace. At least one should know when one is ignorant of something and that information or expert advice should be sought. To drive with one's vision obscured14 or to proceed in the face of an enigma such as a purple traffic light,15 may well be negligence. There is nothing wrong with doing one's own simple household repairs,16 but when the task is a complex one, it may be negligent to proceed without expert advice. Thus, those who build bridges without adequate professional counsel about drainage subject themselves to liability even though they may have escaped if they had consulted competent engineers.17 There are conflicting decisions on the need to consult experts over trees. For example, there is apparently no need for ordinary landowners to confer with specialists to determine if their trees need looping, because they may rely upon their own judgement.18 On the other hand, if the trees are near a busy highway, if a defect is visible, and if the defendant is a large landowner, there may be a "duty to provide himself with skilled advice about the safety of trees".19 Here again, it appears that more effort must be expended to avert greater risk. Normally, however, an actor will be relieved of responsibility if following professional advice or if hiring an expert to perform these tasks,20because it is eminently reasonable to rely upon others,21 especially when they are skilled persons.
Superior knowledge. If people possess superior knowledge, they are obliged to act reasonably as a result. Thus, where the defendant is actually aware of the presence of an inflammable fluid,22 or of mink that are whelping,23 or if the defendant is a "skilled storekeeper",24 additional demands may be expected. A person who uses a light in a garage must do what "any experienced man would do in the face of the known hazards implicit in the undertaking".25 Similarly, someone who utilizes an acetylene torch must exercise the care that a "reasonable man, skilled in such things, would exercise in using such a torch in the particular circumstances of time, place and space, and proximity to inflammable objects involved in its use".26 Someone with actual knowledge of danger has to issue a warning, whereas one who lacks it may not.27 Those who profess to be experts must live up to the standard of their professional confrères.28 A professional football player, for example, is expected to live up to a higher standard than one who plays for a local team.29 There is a special obligation upon drivers of emergency vehicles to be able to handle crises in a more effective way than ordinary drivers because of their training and experience.30
