A quick legal question

[greybeta]

One kid taps another kid on the leg in the classroom. The other kid doesn't feel it, but he had some random tiny open wound that he didn't know about on that spot. Later, that other kid develops an infection as a result of this contact and loses his leg.

[Poll #993913]

Comments

[paranoidgrl.livejournal.com]

Option C: Maybe. I think it hinges on kid 1's intent.

What was kid 1's intention when he tapped kid 2? Was she just trying to get kid 2's attention so she could pass test papers back? or was she tapping kid 2's leg because she wanted to annoy kid 2?

If it's the first situation, (where she just wanted to get 2's attention and was doing it in a socially appropriate way), no liability. There was no intent to hurt, no belief that it would hurt (because the medical condition was unknown at the time).

In the second situation, the intent was to harm 2 (even if the harm was just annoyance). Assault is any unwanted touching; it doesn't have to put you in fear for your health or safety. The fact that the unwanted touching caused more than just annoyance doesn't matter; you take the victim as you find them, commonly referred to as the "eggshell" rule. Even if the victim reacts in a way out of proportion to a "normal" reaction, you're still responsible for all the damages.

Of course, this is just generalizing and the kind of theorizing you do on a law school exam. In the real world, it wouldn't just be the kid, it'd be the school (for not supervising) or doctors (for not realizing 2 was sick) because kid 1's family probably wouldn't have the money to pay decent damages.

[loga.livejournal.com]

American legal culture is disgusting. Liability or no, the kid's not going to get his leg back.

Life is about more than money. But litigation procedure in the U.S. spits in the face of that. Blah.

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

But if he is missing a leg, his earning power is diminished -- there is less that he will be able to do, and many of the 'ground floor' jobs that people get to get experience for office jobs are right out. In addition, he now has some HUGE hospital bills, probably more than he can afford, as well as physical therapy. He will be paying for prosthetics all of his life, and there may be prescriptions as well. He may be in pain, or get depression. Depending on the situation, his insurance might skyrocket.

Would you want to take on hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt plus increased bills and a diminished earning capacity? If there really is liability, then would you blame #2 for wanting to have some of those costs offset?

There is more to life than money, but not having enough money can really fuck your life up badly.

[loga.livejournal.com]

Did you read about this girl?

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2007/05/29/one_limbed_med_student_to_graduate_ucla/

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

Good for her. I'm not sure what your point is.

[loga.livejournal.com]

My point was that, okay, tragedies happen, but I don't see how litigation and monetary awards makes those tragedies any better.

It's up to people to make the most of out of their lives - regardless of handicaps, misfortunes, or whatever.

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

I think that just handwaving losing a limb, or multiple limbs, as 'tragedies happen' is a little bit cold. The tragedy, in Greybeta's hypothetical case and your real one, is pretty severe, with lifelong impact. Nor does getting a monetary award -- IF MERITED -- make the person in question incapable of making the most out of their life. Heck, maybe the kid who lost a leg is gonna use his monetary award to get a really swanky prosthetic that his working-class family never could have otherwise afforded, so that he can stay on the track team and lead his team to regional championship and go to college on a sports scholarship just like he'd always dreamed of doing. It's a hypothetical case, so I can say that he does if I want to. ;) (In the more real sense, we don't know what, if any, money the woman who graduated from UCLA got, especially in terms of scholarships, but possibly in terms of other money as well. Nor would this make her a bad person if she did benefit in that way -- she was coming into it without advantages that many of her fellow students would have taken for granted, and medical school is a VERY competitive place.)

The issue is whether it's merited. Did the person who smacked him have any way of knowing the possible results of their actions? (Ie, were they smacking him with a piece of jagged metal taken out of a midden heap?) Did this person have a history of being a bully? Did they want to cause the guy who lost a leg damage but wound up causing more than intended? Without more details, I think it's presumptive to automatically brand litigation as American greed, because at the core, a lost leg is not like having your clothes ruined or your car smashed.

[fub.livejournal.com]

I chose the option that I think should be the case, not the option that seems likely. However, IANAL.

[koocheeloo.livejournal.com]

Anyone can sue anyone for anything.

It's a matter of how the case is decided.

[purplkat.livejournal.com]

I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is that there's no liability unless there's something special about the situation that makes it reasonable to anticipate the result (or some negative result). If no sane person could ever predict the freak sequence of events that follows the light tap with the flat of a ruler (or something), then I'd say there'd be no liability.