Honorable Mention in Prose

Torts: A Study in Verse
Erin Duryea '05

In law school, professors all make such a fuss,
Forcing huge reading assignments upon all of us.
They should all understand that it gets very tiring;
And sometimes Chief Justices just aren't inspiring.
So in case you happen to be one of those
Who is tired of reading whole volumes of prose,
That unless it has rhythm, it doesn't sink in,
And after twelve hundred pages, you really can't win,
Just sit back and relax, for in just a few lines,
Here's an entire torts outline all written in rhyme.
So forget about Gilbert and Emanuel;
This Roadmap should serve your purposes well
With case briefs and rules and a host of exceptions,
No reasonable professor could harbor objections.
Know this, future judges: there really are ways
To enlighten our reading and brighten our days.

Battery
The defendants here must have intended
Unpermitted contact that harmed or offended.
And if fault and malicious intent are shown,
(i.e. if the defendant really had known
that his act would result in harm or offense)
Then age or insanity is no defense.

Van Camp v. McAfoos, 156 N.W.2d 878 (1968)
"The Achilles Tendon"
He ran his trike into her leg,
And of the Court she did then beg
"If I can't quite prove no intent,
Then can't we say he's negligent?"
The Court ruled not at fault was he,
(For after all, he's only three.)
And giving credit where credit is due,
I must say, I'd have hit her too.

Snyder v. Turk, 627 N.E.2d 1053 (1993)
"The View"
The doctor knew he was making mistakes
And I guess for some that's all it takes
So he decided to take out his frustration
On the poor scrub nurse AND the patient
She gave him the wrong tool to make a cut
And he forced her face into his gut.
The nurse claims that she couldn't be sadder,
But I feel bad for the guy's gallbladder!

Garratt v. Dailey, 279 P.2d 1091 (1955)
"Of Aunts and Lawn Chairs"
The little kid's auntie went to sit down
He moved the chair, and she hit the ground.
Said the child, "I didn't mean it!"
Said the witness, "Did so, I seen it!"
He was young, but the Court didn't care.
They knew he meant to move that chair.

Cohen v. Smith, 627 N.E.2d 1053 (1993)
"The Birth"
He told the doc it wasn't right
For another man to see the sight
Of his beloved all undressed
And the doctor put their fears to rest.
They chose a female doctor, for
The private parts would be seen, for sure.
But what a distressing sight to see
That the nurse who touched her was a he.
Although the touch had posed no harm,
It was unpermitted, and it caused alarm.

Dickens v. Puryear, 276 S.E.2d 325 (1981)
"The Devil Went Down to North Carolina"
The redneck hick got wind that Dickens was sleeping with his kid,
So he went and got his gun and knife like all the rednecks did.
He and his buddies handcuffed Dickens and beat him up real bad
Then told him if he didn't want to die, to leave town with all he had.
Now Dickens is an emotional wreck, scared of everything he sees,
And he wants to sue that redneck hick for assault and battery.
Unfortunately, his time was up for the statute of limitations,
But intentional infliction of emotional distress was an acceptable variation.

Davis v. White, 18 B.R. 246 (Bkrtcy. E.D.Va. 1982)
"Bad Aim"
They'd been arguing for a week
Now White had a gun, and the scene looked bleak
Tipton hopped on his bike and fled
White aimed to shoot but hit Davis instead
Transferred Intent then was the claim;
No one should get off easy for lousy aim.

Altieri v. Colasso, 362 A.2d 798 (1975)
"Another Rock (and a Fence)"
A rock came flying over the fence, and Altieri's eye
The boy who threw the rock, of course, had reason to deny
That he was at all at fault, for his intent was clear
He never meant to hit that boy, but only throw it near
Another boy who also was there on the other side;
And he only meant to scare that boy, not put out someone's eye.
He had planned to commit assault, and that would be bad enough,
But the intent transferred to battery as soon as the eye was struck.

McCann v. Wal-Mart, 210 F.3d 51 (2000)
"Attack of the People-Greeters"
Mrs. McCann went shopping with her two kids one day,
But as she left two employees were standing in her way.
They wouldn't let her leave the store because they had mistaken
Her children for two little thieves, though nothing had they taken.
The workers made her stand in the store's office for awhile
Until security came and told them, "This is not the child!"
And so she quickly left the store, fuming as she went
And telling them that she would sue for false imprisonment.

Torts to Property
A common occurrence is Trespass to Land.
It happens to people whenever they stand
On private property that isn't their own
Or land that to others they lease or they loan.
It matters not that they just happened upon it
Or even how long they intend to stay on it.
For the actual harm that they cause they'll be sued
And sometimes for punitive damages, too.

Conversion of Chattels (it once was called Trover)
Is something that most students have to think over
Because it is like trespass to property
Although to a slightly higher degree.
More like the criminal ideas of theft,
Conversion leaves all the true owners bereft
Of their property, though some may be unaware
That the property they've taken is not really theirs.
Trespass to Property requires much less —
Interference causing chattels to be dispossessed.
Lost use or harm will also result
In a "trespass to property" finding of fault.

Walker v. Kelly, 314 A.2d 785 (1973)
"The Rock"
Riding his bike in his hometown,
Mike tried to run little Sharon down.
Sharon found it quite a shock,
Then someone told her to throw a rock.
She threw a rock and hit his eye,
Making Michael Walker cry.
"I meant to hit him," so she said
"But on the fingers, not the head."
The Court ruled it was not malicious.
Little Sharon didn't mean to be so vicious.

Negligence
In a Negligence cause, the defendant must owe
The plaintiff a duty of care
This duty is to do only whatever
A reasonable person would dare.
The defendant must then in some way have breached
The duty the court thinks he owed,
(If the plaintiff can't prove this definitely,
his case then begins to corrode.)
Next that breach must have been the actual cause
Of the harm plaintiff seeks to redress.
(Some would refer to this as "cause in fact"),
But alone that won't ensure success,
For the breach must be also the proximate cause
Of the injury plaintiff sustained,
And this factor does give many law students pause
And has infinite headaches inflamed.
For proximate cause must mean that the harm
And the breach can't be too far related,
Foreseeability then becomes the key
To a good case or one that's ill-fated.
Finally, the thing that you shouldn't forget,
Lest you make a most serious blunder,
Is that there always must be injury,
Or the judge will state at you in wonder
At how you have gotten so far in your life
(Regardless of how long or short)
Lacking that basic life skill that you need. . .
A sound understanding of Torts.

Stewart v. Motts, 654 A.2d 535 (1995)
"Let Me Fuel Your Tank"
Stewart asked Motts if he needed some help
Repairing a fuel tank one day.
Motts was moving the car with the tank
Unattached, so he told Stew "okay".
So the two joined forces; here's how the plan went:
Stewart would pour in the gas
While Motts, in the cab, at the right moment
Would give the ignition a blast.
Well I think we all know what might happen from here,
For there's one point that most folks are sure on;
This particular mix should strike in us some fear—
A machine, gasoline, and two morons.

Robinson v. Lindsay, 598 P.2d 392 (1979)
"He's a Big boy Now"
Billy took his friend out on a snowmobile one day.
He was thirteen and she eleven; they only meant to play.
Unfortunately, an accident caused Kelly to lose her thumb.
She sued Billy for negligence, though he'd not yet become
Old enough to be held to an adult's standard of care,
But the fact that he was driving made a lot of difference there.
For when a child engages in an inherently dangerous task,
His accountability increases likewise, which leaves the court to ask:
Are there exceptions to the general rule that would pose a contention?
Should children always be compared to those of similar age retention?

Creasy v. Rusk, 730 N.E.2d 659 (2000)
"An Assumption of Risk"
Mr. Rusk, a patient, didn't like to go to bed.
Ms. Creasy and the other nurses had to use their heads.
They new he had been feisty, for he'd been like that all night;
He kicked them, and he hit them, and he put up quite a fight.
Ms. Creasy claims he hurt her bad,
and he should be held liable,
For the simple fact he cause the harm was certainly undeniable.
The court agreed and claimed
that people not right in their heads
Shouldn't be let off easy, but treated like everyone else instead.
Creasy had assumed the risk, Rusk's lawyers tried to say,
But he hadn't practiced reasonable care,
and Ms. Creasy won the day.

Shepherd v. Gardner Wholesale, Inc., 256 So.2d 877 (1972)
Roberts v. State of Louisiana, 396 So.2d 566 (1981)
"Of Blindness and Fairness"
Shepherd had poor vision and tripped walking down the street.
She need not be held up to any standards she can't meet.
She can't be held responsible for a higher degree of care;
She's compared to others like herself, and the standards now are fair.

Burson was a blind man who had to use the john.
He didn't bother taking his cane for the minute he'd be gone.
On the way, he plowed down a poor unsuspecting guy,
But he's held to different standards, for it's not fair to deny
The disabled of their rights, for when they're walking down the street,
We can't hold them to standards that they cannot possibly meet.