An Alberta judge has rejected a legal case where one child sued another following a dispute over a toy dinosaur that resulted in a finger injury.
Justice Brian Hougestol, in a recent ruling, labeled the lawsuit involving two boys in Grande Prairie, Alberta, as “uncommon” and highlighted various legal complexities related to capacity.
The incident occurred in 2022 during a summer daycare program run by a non-governmental organization when the boys engaged in a scuffle over a toy described by the judge as being similar in size to a 500-ml water bottle.
The plaintiff, aged nine at the time, and the defendant, aged 11, were involved in what was termed as a “swatting match,” where the toy was used by the defendant to strike at the plaintiff, resulting in a “dislocation fracture” to the ring finger of the plaintiff’s right hand.
Describing the severity of the injury, the judge mentioned that the finger was nearly severed at the bone but still attached, necessitating surgery to prevent potential loss of the finger.
The plaintiff, now 13, recovered well from the injury with minimal ongoing issues, as per Hougestol.
While a video of the altercation existed, it was not presented in court, and neither were doctor nor hospital records related to the incident.
Hougestol noted that the plaintiff’s recollection of the event was vague, considering the time lapse and his young age at the time.
The court decision did not specify if the boys’ legal representatives were their parents or other relatives. However, the plaintiff’s mother appeared focused on the lack of communication from the defendant’s parents post-injury, which the judge attributed to the closure of the third-party daycare.
The judge emphasized that the defendant’s parents had no legal obligation to contact the plaintiff’s family, as they were not at fault for the incident, which was deemed an unforeseeable occurrence and not an intentional attack.
Hougestol concluded that the injury was a random incident arising from a minor disagreement, typical among children, and not a deliberate act. If liability had been established, the damages sought would have amounted to $10,000 in general damages along with out-of-pocket expenses.