The reasonable man concept applies whenever a case is being decided on the facts in the area of tort liability.
This case is different because it is about the fundamental question of whether Terri had expressed a clear and convincing intent to forego life saving measures in the absence of a "living will."
The United States Supreme Court has held that person has the so-called "right to die" where there is clear and convincing evidence that the person has expressed that desire in the form of a living will....or some other reasonable demonstration of that intent.
In this case, the real question is whether there was ever any express demonstration of her wishes. The facts are in dispute.
In my belief, there is a lack of "clear and convincing" evidence that she expressed an intention to have life preserving methods withheld from her. The Florida courts seemingly bought into Michael Schiavo's testimony that Terri had expressed that desire to him verbally.
Her parents, on the other hand, claim differently. The facts are in dispute. Therefore, there is a lack of clear and convincing evidence that she expressed the desire to have lifesaving measures withheld.
Unfortunately, legal procedure is not geared to reopen the case. If, there is any chance to have this case overturned, it would be on the grounds that the state court abused its discretion in finding the so-called "clear and convincing evidence" that Terri expressed her wishes to die.