The "Reasonable Man" standard can make defending against intentional torts tricky because it is based on personal opinions.

1. Confusion:

   • This rule looks at what an average person might think or do. But ideas about what is "average" can change a lot based on where someone is from or the situation they are in.
   • Because of this, similar cases can have very different outcomes in court, making it hard to know what will happen.

2. Proof Challenges:

   • People accused of these torts often have to show that their actions matched this standard. This is not easy, especially when everyone has different views.

3. Possible Solutions:

   • It would help if we had clearer rules about what "reasonable" behavior looks like. This way, we can have more consistency and fairness in the legal system.
   • Getting expert opinions on what a reasonable person would do in certain situations could also help clear up confusion and make things easier to understand.