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.

[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.