About once per week, Betty Slowe at The Tuscaloosa News adds to her blog, LOOKING BACK: 100 Years Ago This Week. Her post this Sunday includes the details of an interesting legal case being heard in the Tuscaloosa County Courts:
“A case to be heard this week in the Tuscaloosa County Court was regarding the responsibility for a mule’s kick. Barney Creamer who complained that a mule owned by Copeland and Copland, engaged in the lumber business in Cottondale, kicked him in the forehead just above the eye necessitating the removal of part of his skull and causing him permanent injury to his eye, health and appearance. The defendants do own the mule, but claim they were not responsible for the actions of the mule.”
You can read the full blog post here.
For you legal scholars out there, I pose the following flashback to your law school Torts final exam:
May the defendant mule-owners be held liable for the Plaintiff’s injuries? Explain your reasoning, and address what affirmative defenses, if any are available to the Defendants. You have 90 minutes, and please write legibly.