assume the responsibilities of a preceptor, or would be reluctant to delegate tasks to the interns that could spawn future litigation. In the present ease, there was evidence that the intern, Brenna, was in fact supervised by the funeral director D’Errico in the course of her work, including the funeral arrangements in this case. As a matter of law, we hold that Brenna was entitled as an intern to the qualified protection conferred by N.J.S.A. 45:7-95 and N.J.S.A. 45:27-22(d), assuming that “reasonable notice” of the father’s objections to the cremation had not been provided. Case-dispositive questionsof reasonableness in tort actions are commonly questions of fact for the jury (or the judge in a bench trial). See, e.g., Jerkins v. Anderson, 191 N.J. 285, 305-06, 922 A.2d 1279 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Burke v. Briggs, 239 N.J.Super. 269, 274, 571
holding that the reasonableness of a defendants efforts in discharging a duty of care is a question for the trier of fact when the record does not permit summary judgment holding that the issue of defendants actual knowledge should not be resolved on summary judgment but should be left to the trier of fact holding it is a question of fact holding question of citys exercise of due care in enforcement of ordinance was question of fact and inappropriate for summary judgment holding that summary judgment is appropriate wjhere the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party