Therefore, if Lucinda was learning to use crutches with reasonable …show more content…
A child taking a dare could be argued as normal behavior. This flip side to the equation is why what comprises “a reasonable person” is a topic of debate. However, the very nature of a “dare” implies the behavior in question is not reasonable. Otherwise, the request for the behavior could not be classified as a dare. No one has ever said, “I dare you to walk reasonably on your crutches!” Otherwise, if Lucinda had walked across this extremely narrow walkway outside of a dare other interesting analysis would take place. If there were other areas of travel and she chose the more dangerous avenue, then this may still imply negligence. However, if this was Lucinda’s normal avenue of travel, without alternative, then it may be argued she was displaying reasonable behavior through an objective standard. A hypothetical reasonable person on crutches needing to arrive at a destination, such as their home, having no other angle of ingress would likely use the same narrow path, regardless of the added danger of crutches. Additionally, the defense might explore Lucinda’s pre-existing medical history. However, in this situation, it must be acknowledged the above is not the case. Lucinda was engaging in behavior she obviously knew to be hazardous to her health under the social pressure of a