Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Can you think of a justifiable reason for placing a lit firecracker in someone else's shoe? Well, the court case I was assigned to read this week gave me one answer. The case, entitled Waters v. Blackshear involved two children who were playing with firecrackers when Blackshear placed a firecracker in seven year old Maurice Waters' left sneaker. Waters' mother sued Blackshear for negligence and the case eventually rose to the Supreme Court.

This case was interesting to me because it required a certain degree of critical thinking. The plaintiff (Waters) argued negligence which is why they lost. However, if they had argued battery, they would have won. The ruling does not make this blatantly obvious, which meant that I had to do a little bit of reading between the lines. The court found that Blackshear committed battery — an intentional tort — which cannot be classified as negligence. By definition, negligence torts and intentional torts are somewhat opposites. In order to prove negligence, there has to be proof that the defendant acted in a manner that is inconsistent with the legal standard. In Blackshear's case, ignorance was not bliss.

Mr. Parekh and I have settled into a comfortable rhythm for our meetings in which we split our time in three ways. We cover the assigned case, my progress on the original work project, and any interesting developments in his professional life. This allows us to maximize the efficiency of the time we spend together, and I am confident that this is a formula for success in future meetings as well.