Which is kind of true. Now begins the great work of Outlining. I skipped crew practice today to devote more of my time to synthesizing reams of notes into concise study guides and exam references. Now, after staring at my computer screen for 7 hours, I am wired and can't sleep, because I missed my daily exercise and I can't stop thinking about negligence.
You might not think the concept of negligence is inspiring at all, but, oh ho, you are wrong! This riveting subject has finally shed light on a particularly frustrating and recurring puzzle from my childhood.
It all revolved around my dad's favorite accusation, which he reserved for those moments when one of my siblings or I had done something accidental yet totally exasperating.
For example, one day when I was about 5, I decided to open the fridge and see what I could see. I don't remember what I was looking for. I probably wasn't allowed to have it, but that's beside the point. When I opened the door, a massive jug full of iced tea came crashing to the floor. As best I could tell, it had been leaning up against the door. I sure had made a mess, but I wasn't sure how to clean it up, so my only option was to let Dad in on the catastrophe.
As Dad stared at the mess in consternation, I could only come up with one defense, which I knew was absolutely true, and I always expected would excuse me from all blame and discipline: "I didn't try to..."
What followed became the oft-repeated and inevitable response: "You may not have tried to, but you didn't try hard enough not to!!"
What is a little kid to say to that anyway? I knew that it offended my 5-year-old sense of fairness and justice (which was already quite robust at that age), but I had no idea why, and I certainly wouldn't have been able to verbalize it.
Well! Guess what: It turns out that "not trying hard enough not to" is called negligence, an awkward and complicated concept, which I just spent the last several weeks picking apart and sifting through.
There's a reason why our torts book covered intentional torts first before moving on to tackle negligence. It's much easier to blame someone when it's clear that 1) they knew what they were doing, 2) they knew that it was going to hurt someone, and 3) they did it anyway. In my 5-year-old sense of the world, this was the only blame-worthy offense. If you didn't try to, you couldn't be blamed.
Plus, If I didn't try hard enough not to (I fumed to myself) how was I ever supposed to know what it meant to "try hard enough?"
Well, theoretically, I should have been able to figure it out. It turns out negligence is based upon the duty of care that each person has, based on what they actually knew (or should have known) about the situation. Their actions are then judged to be appropriate or negligent, based on their knowledge under the circumstances.
Sometimes the factor of "knew or should have known" is altered by the type of person you are dealing with. For example, a 5-year-old. What kind of knowledge can we assume that 5-year-old Miriam had? Well first of all, probably no one could have known that the fridge was booby trapped, ready to dump iced tea on whoever happened to open the door next, whether they be 5 or 50 years old.
On the other hand, 5-year-old Miriam definitely knew she wasn't supposed to be rummaging for snacks all by herself, and probably even knew that such ventures tended to lead to spills and messes. If we can impute that knowledge to my 5-year-old self, we might conclude that the age-appropriate duty of care required asking for help before embarking on solo snacking expeditions, and that I already knew what was required of me, pre-iced-tea-Niagra-Falls...
This is no doubt what Dad was thinking as he glared at the lake of iced tea on the kitchen floor, reflected in my pouty tear-filled eyes.
It might have helped if he had explained that to me... On the other hand, my inability to conceptualize duty of care was only half of my righteous indignation. The other half stemmed from the inherent unfairness of the decision being solely Dad's.
In a negligence case, it's up to a judge and/or jury to decide the knowledge imputed, the foreseeability of the outcome of certain behavior, and the duty of care required. For me, it was only up to Dad, and I wouldn't get the chance to argue that I, as "just a little kid," should be given a little break on trying hard to prevent accidents; or that no one could have foreseen the precarious pitcher; or that opaque fridge doors are an inherently risky design flaw.
I didn't know about juries or due process rights, but I knew something about the whole system just wasn't fair.
This drove me crazy, and, on at least one occasion, I lectured my parents on the inherent injustice of the parent-child power imbalance. ...I'm not sure I got my point across; I'm pretty sure it mostly just amused them. (Which further infuriated me, and eventually motivated me to go to law school, thanks Mom and Dad! just kidding...)
At least I now know how I will handle this situation if there's ever a next generation of little Miriams. Will I use the "didn't try hard enough not to"? Oh, yeah. Most definitely. It's perfect; just incomplete.
Knowing how frustrating this concept is to understand, I will make sure to sit down with them and explain:
"You see, honey, there's this thing called negligence..."
(Ahhhh, my kids are gonna LOVE me...)