[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

I have a question for you all: What is classified as "risky" behavior, and what exactly is "common-sense"?

I hear a lot of people saying things like, "he is obligated to prohibit from any 'risky' behavior which may result in injury," or, "he should use common-sense."

I do think that he was senseless by riding without a helmet, but I cannot say that he was lacking common-sense simply because his principles don't conform to mine. He could be injured horsing-around with his brother, or he could slip and fall. Does that mean he should avoid all behavior which could result in injury (like walking)? Of course not.

We should avoid making general statements like these. If he is bound by his contract to avoid riding motorcycles that is one thing--otherwise, we cannot say he is obligated to avoid risk. It would be better to say that he should avoid any risky behavior, within reason.

Good point. Brian Gresie (sp?) did get injured tripping over his dog a few years ago and no one was mad at him for having a dog. But in this situation I think everyone realizes that riding a motorcycle without a helmet is inheriantly more dangerous than horsing around.