Law of Obligations and Tomfoolery

Earlier today I was invigilating LLB Tort exam, this was question two.

Ed, a thirteen year old, is playing by the main road outside the playground with his friends, Sam aged eleven and Albert aged fourteen. Sam suggests that they play ‘Chicken’, a game where children take turns to run across the road as near as they dare to passing cars. The first vehicle to approach is a motorbike ridden by Fred. Albert runs out in front of Fred, Fred swerves, manages to avoid Albert and falls off his bike. Fred is uninjured but his bike is mangled. Fred picks himself up, dusts himself off and punches Albert so hard that Fred knocks out two of Albert’s teeth. Albert stumbles home at this point. Next comes Dave, who is approaching the stretch of road, driving his car at a moderate speed while eating a pork pie, when Ed dashes out in front of him. Dave slams on his brakes as fast as he can, but he does not succeed in avoiding Ed. The car his Ed, then skids and turns over. Dave and Ed are both very seriously injured.

Advise all parties

I think it’s obvious really. They should all sue the school/LEA for not supervising the children and the pork-pie manufacturer for not having an appropriate disclaimer on the food wrapper. Meanwhile someone should knock out Sam’s teeth for planning this whole caper. He’s probably still got his baby teeth, so (under Law Commission guidelines) it is acceptable to do this.

About caspar

Caspar is just one monkey among billions. Battering his keyboard without expectations even of peanuts, let alone of aping the Immortal Bard. By day he is an infantologist at Birkbeck Babylab, by night he runs BabyLaughter.net
This entry was posted in words and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply