This helpful update appeared in today's "Legal Headlines" email from FindLaw:
PERSONAL INJURY
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 FindLaw.com
