The Law: Of Booze, Broth & Anguish

“Law is not a science, but is essentially empirical,” said Mr. Justice Holmes. Law also deals with everything under the sun—in the highest courts as well as the lowest:

> The Florida Supreme Court ruled that a price may be put on human anguish over a dog’s death. In West Hollywood, a privately employed garbage man laughingly hurled an empty can at Phyllis La Forte’s pet dachshund, Heidi. When the blow killed the dog, Plaintiff La Forte’s “marked hysteria” won her a $3,000 jury verdict against the garbage company. An appellate court reversed the verdict, hewing to the general rule that a dog owner may collect only his pet’s market value. The state Supreme Court disagreed and set a new precedent: “We feel that the affection of a master for his dog is a very real thing, and that the malicious destruction of the pet provides an element of damage for which the owner should recover, irrespective of the value of the animal.”

> The New York Supreme Court’s appellate division reversed a $4,604 workmen’s compensation award to Business Executive Guy F. Hancock, who was badly injured in a plunge from a hotel balcony while on a business trip to Chicago. Reason: Hancock fell in the act of tossing “hats and coats over the balcony railing,” apparently after too many drinks. Said the court: “The frequenting of cocktail lounges with unknown female companions cannot be considered part of employment under the guise that this is accepted business activity.”

> The Massachusetts Supreme Court struck a blow to “save our world-renowned fish chowder from degenerating into an insipid broth.” As all seasoned slurpers should know, New England fish chowder is full of dangerous objects—from bones to bits of shell. And when Priscilla Webster swallowed without seining at Boston’s Blue Ship Tea Room, she got a bone in her throat that required hospital extraction. Miss Webster sued, won a jury verdict of $1,800. On reversing it, the Supreme Court absolved the restaurant of responsibility for the damage done by “the bone of contention,” even though “we sympathize with the plaintiff, who suffered a peculiarly New England injury.” The court’s reasoning: to force all restaurants to grind up chowder chunks would destroy “a hallowed tradition.” Said the court: New Englanders “should be prepared to cope with the hazards of fish bones.”