Transcript
October 05, 2009. See Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash.2d 19, 279 P.2d 1091 (1955). I suppose you could point to other battery / intent cases as well, but this was the first case I read in law school, so it gets to be the inspiration for the first strip. The case is interesting because it shows that (1) the relevant intent is that of offensive contact (or "touching" as Professor Levy puts it) and (2) you can sue a 5-year-old kid. Why sue a 5-year-old kid? Because he has money. Clearly.
Intentional Touching
BATTERY!
Tort Bunny kicks Brown Rabbit between the legs
End of panel.
Brown Rabbit: Liability! Liability for the harm to my balls!
Tort Bunny: But battery requires intent!
I knew not of your balls and
thus could not have
intended them harm.
End of panel.
Brown Rabbit: But to prove battery, I need
only to show intent of harmful
touching, not the
actual harm itself!
Tort Bunny: I am thwarted!
End of panel.
Brown Rabbit: I have been wronged and
demand justice!
Compensatory damages
for my suffering! And
punitive damages as well!
End of panel.
Brown Rabbit: My lawyers will feast
upon your assets
today Tort Bunny!
Tort Bunny: Nay! For I have
neither money
nor tort insurance!
End of panel.
Brown Rabbit: I am thwarted!
End of comic.
Comments