Class Members Sought for Anti-Shark Litigation

LTB default 777x437

This helpful update appeared in today’s "Legal Headlines" email from FindLaw:


Boy, 12, Bitten By Shark Off Fla. Coast

Well, that is a "personal injury," no doubt about it.  I’m just not sure what the legal ramifications are, or who Boy’s family will be able to sue for this.  Some ideas:

    1. Shark.
        Pro: did it.
        Con: long gone by now, no deep pockets (no pockets at all, in fact).

     2. Lifeguard.
        Pro: can be found, might possibly have been negligent in some way.
        Con: pockets not much deeper than shark’s.

     3. Energy industry.
         Pro: can be found, has deep pockets, contributes to global warming that caused Boy to enter ocean seeking relief, Al Gore available as expert witness.
         Con: Al Gore available as expert witness.

     4. Captain Quint.
         Pro: Not very likeable; negligent actions off Long Island rendered boat and crew unable to catch further sharks, making injury to Boy more likely.
         Con: was eaten.

     5. Toy manufacturers.
         Pro: wholly non-threatening and toothless shark-like stuffed animals and pool toys led Boy to believe sharks were not dangerous; should have carried label that warned of enhanced danger from real sharks in real ocean.
         Con: is dumb, but no dumber than a lot of other cases out there.

I think the nation’s toy makers should get ready for an expensive class action.

Link: AP via