And now for something completely different . . . I've refrained from quoting the fact section, but it is an amusing read. Nothing like when jurists are faced with describing sexual activity in a manner "appropriate" for publication . . . How long before The Daily Show picks up this story?http://www.malawyersweekly.com/signup/opinion.cfm?page=ma/opin/coa/1108105.htmJOHN DOE vs. MARY MOE
No. 02-P-381
Essex Appeals Court
May 16, 2005
Before Laurence, Mills, & Trainor, JJ
Opinion by TRAINOR, J
<snip>
The plaintiff's complaint sought recovery for serious physical injury suffered during consensual sexual intercourse with the defendant. The motion judge concluded that the ordinary negligence standard was inapplicable to personal injury resulting from consensual sexual intercourse and, applying a heightened standard of recklessness, found that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment.
<snip>
We must determine whether the application of a standard of reasonable care to private consensual sexual conduct is appropriate or even workable.
<snip>
While it is inappropriate and unworkable to hold consenting adults to a standard of reasonable care in the conduct of private consensual sexual behavior, we conclude that it is appropriate that they be held to a standard that requires them not to engage in wanton or reckless conduct toward each other during such consensual sexual conduct.
<more>
One has to wonder if the Supreme Court will soon be taking up this issue of negligent unilateral-sexual-position-changing and resulting injury? I suppose it would be them or Cinemax . . .
Note: Even though it deals with sex, I don't think this violates DU rules, but if so please delete as appropriate . . .