Law360 Canada (October 16, 2026, 2:32 PM EDT) --
 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
Does anybody think Humpty Dumpty took his fall off the wall lying down? No way. Mr. Dumpty actually commenced a lawsuit seeking compensation as a result of injuries suffered. I recently came across a copy of a little-known decision of the High Court of Wonderland, which I would like to share.
High Court of Wonderland
Humpty Dumpty v. The King and all the King’s horses et al.
Reasons for judgment
Justice Wiggle
This is an action for damages by one Humpty Dumpty. The main facts are as follows:
I. Facts
Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall,
All the King’s horses and all the King’s men,
Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty together again.
The wall in question is situated on lands owned by the Crown, namely His Majesty the King of Hearts. Mr. Dumpty testified that it was a hot day in July when he decided to stroll through the King’s Forest. He wanted to relax a bit and when he noticed the subject wall, he propped himself up thereon. The evidence was that the wall was four feet three inches in height.
After about two minutes the plaintiff lost his balance and came tumbling down onto the ground. A young lady, one Alice, witnessed the unfortunate event and summoned help. All the King’s men and his horses were the first responders. They rendered first aid but alas, they could not put Humpty Dumpty together again.
Mr. Dumpty brings this action for damages against the King and all of his men and horses.
II. Issues
a) Liability of the Crown
The plaintiff pleads that the defendant King was negligent in that the wall was of faulty design and an allurement, beckoning unsuspecting visitors to sit thereon.
His Majesty argues that the purpose of the wall was not to sit on it but rather for the kingdom to post royal-related announcements such as a ball, a royal appointment or a beheading.
Defence counsel Sir James Pilkington, K.C., pleads that there is no liability in any event as the plaintiff was a trespasser. He tendered a sign (Exhibit C), reading, “No trespassing. His Majesty assumes no liability for injuries however caused or suffered.”
When asked in cross-examination what the plaintiff thought this warning meant, he replied, “Words mean what I choose them to mean — neither more nor less.”
This court accepts the plaintiff’s reasonable interpretation.
The defendant King clearly owed a duty of care to visitors to his bailiwick. He unfortunately breached his duty. The minimum His Majesty ought to have done is equip the subject wall with handles. There was a clear lack of due diligence.
b) Liability of the King’s horses and men
Mr. Dumpty alleges that the horses and men stood by helpless and ill-equipped and trained to deal with what would be a common occurrence. While he lay on the ground in pieces, he testified that he overheard the men and the horses conferring and the horses suggesting a simple and definitive course of action-shooting him. Fortunately, the will of the men prevailed over that of the horses.
As a result of the delay in proper assistance he claims he has suffered irreparable harm.
This diagnosis was confirmed by a Dr. Pillsbury who opined that when a gentleman built like an egg falls off a wall, time for treatment is of the essence. Proper medical attention must be provided with all haste. He notes, “You cannot just leave him lying in the sun.”
Nor does this court accept defence argument that the plaintiff’s unusual fragile composition exposed him to greater risk of injury. It is trite law that a tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him. The plaintiff herein is an eggshell plaintiff. These defendants were remiss in their duty owed to this loyal subject in the case at bar.
III. Contributory negligence of the plaintiff
The defendants claim even if there is liability, the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in that while sitting on the wall, he was eating an ice cream cone. This evidence was corroborated by Alice. The plaintiff denies this allegation completely, calling it pure fiction.
However, in able cross-examination by counsel Sir Henry Bellingham Esq., Alice admitted her judgment could have been compromised as she had recently eaten some strange mushrooms.
This court does not accept her evidence where it conflicts with that of the plaintiff’s.
IV. Damages
Turning to the issue of damages, the plaintiff is still in tatters. He has been under the care of a Dr. Nigel Winston, a plastic surgeon specializing in eggshell injuries. Dr. Winston notes that the plaintiff’s prognosis is highly guarded. His enjoyment of life has been severely compromised.
Prior to this accident, he used to enjoy activities such as writing and reading poetry, going for walks and having daily tea at the home of the Mad Hatter. He finds these activities near impossible now as he is still somewhat dissected. He claims that the other guests at the Mad Hatter’s tea party look at him strangely as he occupies three chairs. He is certain that the smile of the Cheshire Cat is directed at him.
V. Disposition
Taking all the evidence into account, this court awards judgment for the plaintiff reimbursing him for all his medical and other out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of 15,000 Crowns and 11 shillings and three pence and the further amount of 50,000 Crowns for pain and suffering.
Judgment accordingly.
His Lordship, The Honourable Justice Wiggle.
Hopefully this case may make a great precedent for lawyers arguing a similar accident.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X: @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.