phil6
Jack and Jill went up the hill, to fetch a pail of water.
Jack fell down and broke his crown....At which point Jack's attorney immediately filed suit against the owner of the hill for not installing proper safety railings, citing the case of "Humpty-Dumpty vs. The King," in which it was held that the King was responsible for the safety of eggs sitting on his wall, as a precedent.
The hill owner's attorney filed an "Answer" stating the Hunpty-Dumpty case was not a proper precedent, as the King was also sued because all his horses and men, acting as his agents, were practicing medicine without a license and because it was a wall rather than a hill that Humpty-Dumpty (who was an egg instead of a child) fell from.
Jack's attorney refiled an ammended complaint not citing the Humty-Dumpty case a precedent. That case is still pending; it's awaiting an investigation into whether or not Jack and Jill were trespassing on the hill for immoral reasons and evaluations of Jack and Jill's parents by the Children's Services Board to determine if the pair were adequately supervised.
-Olo 2006
Return to Top
Return to Philosophy
Return to Personal Interests
Return to Main
Copyright ©2006 by Olorin Edric
Last revised: 0606.25/71850.
