It's Reasonable Man!

"Here he comes to save the day! It's REASONABLE MAN! Whenever you're in trouble and the case is difficult he is there. When you, as a judge, are perplexed what the hell was in the mind of this silly accused individual, he can guide you! Ask not what the accused actually thought, ask only what Reasonable Man would have thought."

The above is the intro to my new TV show concept. A superhero swoops in and saves legal problems by stepping in and solving the most mystifying quandaries. Sound good?

Hollis v Dow Corning Corp (1995)

[Another judge] applied the modified objective test [to a similar problem]. The test applied ... was as follows: would a reasonable woman in [the plaintiff's] circumstances have consented to the surgery if she had known all the material risks?

OK. How the heck is anybody supposed to answer that question? If RW is a prostitute, if RW would want breast implants, if RW etc, etc, etc, then would RW have consented to the surgery? All I see are evidentiary problems.

One of these days, I'd like to meet this "reasonable woman/ man". I have many questions. Maybe she is Chief Justice McLaghlin but the judges don't want to name her outright.
;)