What I like about Torts are the little snippets of everyday life that come out of the cases, the situations and accidents that we call upon our legal system to resolve. I like how one party's idea of common sense ("It's common sense, Your Honor!") is another party's idea of extravagant legal theory.
I like the legal smackdowns some of the judges deliver, as well.
Take the case of Hegel v. Langsam, a 1971 case from Ohio. The plaintiff in this case was a minor, a seventeen year old female. The complaint alleged that her university permitted her to "become associated with criminals, to be seduced, to become a drug user and further allowed her to be absent from her dormitory and failed to return her to her parents' custody on demand."
(On a side note, this sounds like the college experience of more than a few people I know.)
The judge, ruling that the university did not have a duty of care towards this woman, delivered the blow. "In our opinion, plaintiffs completely misconstrue the duties and functions of a university. A university is an institution for advancement of knowledge and learning. It is neither a nursery school, a boarding school nor a prison. No one is required to attend."
Hallelujah, Your Honor.
3 comments:
If most judges are that sensible, half of the cases clogging our judicial system will probably be thrown out of court!
Btw, I don't know if you've ever written about this, but since you're studying law, do you like reading fiction about law or lawyers, e.g. John Grisham, et al? If so, which one is your fav?
What amazed me most in Torts were the things people actually thought were worth suing over. They make it sound like every fender bender is a potential suit. Or every trip and fall, or a dog bite, etc. I always figured insurance took care of the serious injuries, and the rest were just things to deal with. Boy was I innocent :)
Yes, it's amazing what people will sue over. And, except for the professional slip and fall people, a lot of them are dead serious. They're not faking.
Musenla, my impression so far is that judges often are fairly common sense and the parties involved are there in good faith. Even the famous McDonald's case (hot coffee) wasn't anywhere near as cut & dry as it seemed - we had to read parts of it.
Post a Comment