The Case Of Alex Hardy Driving The Reasonable Man-Standard

On August 3, 1991, Alex Hardy was permanently immobilized from the waist down. According to his statement, Hardy was driving his Chevrolet S-10 Blazer down Route 80 in Lowndes County, Alabama. Hardy allegedly confessed he had “a few beers” prior to his accident, but the alcohol test came back inconclusive (Boot). Court records show that Hardy was also not wearing a seat belt while driving his Blazer (“GM”). As a result of the alcohol, Hardy also admitted he fell asleep at the wheel, which prevented him from responding accordingly.
Hardy’s lawyer, James Butler, argued that the door latch was defective and as a result, Hardy flew out of the driver’s side door (“The Hardy”). General Motors tried refuting this statement by claiming Hardy was driving

The reasonable man-standard is used in law to determine negligence. “A jury generally decides whether a defendant has acted as a reasonable person would have acted. In making this decision, the jury generally considers the defendant’s conduct in light of what the defendant actually knows, has experienced, or has perceived” (“Standards”). In this case, the jury decided that the defendant knew about the problem but failed to act as a reasonable man, causing Hardy’s injury.
GM did not intend to purposely cause Hardy harm but the company was held liable for neglecting the door latch recall. In GM’s defense, the questions that Hardy needs to answer to are: was Hardy acting as a reasonable man? If he were wearing a seat belt would his physical injuries be minor? Was he being negligent by driving while intoxicated? Could Hardy have been more responsive by not falling asleep at the

This would impede him from any compensation. I may also add that every driver on the road has to have common sense. Driving laws are enforced for a reason and that reason is to protect the driver as well as others. Driving while sleeping, driving without a seat belt, and driving under the influence are all negligent behaviors. A tort is a civil wrongdoing that is done by the defendant against the plaintiff (Kadian). After reading the article “Empowering the Active Jury: A Genuine Tort
Reform,” I agree with Hans and her view of tort reform.
Active jury reforms are trial innovations that encourage jurors’ vigorous participation in their decision making. These reforms include prosaic changes such as permitting juror note taking, as well as more controversial ones such as allowing juror questions and authorizing juror discussions during the trial (Hans).
Tort reform would place limitations on the amount of money the plaintiff receives. “The liability judgments and compensatory awards revealed better calibration of the plaintiffs’ injuries in the notes conditions” (Hans). It is unknown if Judge Ted Bozeman allowed the jury to take notes in the Hardy case. The tortfeasor in this case would have had limited, but fair, accountability for their