What legal standard will determine whether the man's behavior was too risky in the case against the insurance company?

The determination of whether the man's behavior was too risky falls under the category of a question of fact for the jury to resolve. In civil procedure, particularly in tort law or negligence cases, such assessments typically involve factual inquiries that require the application of a standard of care to the specific circumstances of the case.

The jury is tasked with evaluating the evidence presented, including the behavior in question, and determining whether it constitutes a deviation from the expected standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances. This involves considering various factors, such as the situation's context, the risks involved, and potential consequences of the behavior. Hence, the jury's role becomes crucial in making these determinations, as they represent the fact-finders in adjudicating matters that hinge on the specifics of the case at hand.

Legal standards and procedural issues, such as whether something constitutes an affirmative defense or warrants summary judgment, typically do not involve making direct assessments of behaviors and their associated risks; instead, they focus on legal interpretations and application of law. Therefore, the jury's engagement in this factual inquiry is essential for resolving disputes related to perceived recklessness or negligence in behavior, making it the appropriate legal standard in this context.