Weasley v. Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry (1 D.T. 3)

(1 D.T. 3)
1993


Weasley v. Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry

Dickered Terms Supreme Court

July 15th, 1993, Heard in Supreme Court

 

Factual Background

Ronald Weasley, missing the school's train back to Hogwarts, found himself flying his father's Flying Ford Anglia, quite ignorantly, in order to avoid expulsion from the school.  No Firewhiskey, or anything of the sort, was involved.  While attempting to land the car on school grounds Weasley crashed into the school's Whomping Willow, a dangerous tree that has resided at Hogwarts since around 1971.  The Whomping Willow, in self defense, proceeded to remove the Weasley vehicle from it's branches and in doing so negligently injured Ronald Weasley.  The tree severely damaged the Flying Ford Anglia and broke young Weasley's wand and injured Weasley himself, though it isn't clear how much damage arrived from the initial crash or the subsequent whomps.  Ronald Weasley brought suit against Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry based on the strict liability of keeping a Whomping Willow on school grounds.  Trial court held for Weasley and the Court of Appeals affirmed their decision.  Hogwarts appealed.

(Audio version of the opinion.)

MR. JUSTICE IZZARD delivers the opinion of the court.

Twas thrice the willow wantonly whomped the Weasley.  It is no secret that this tree that has graced Hogwarts school grounds for decades is dangerous, but the real issue before the court is whether this tree rises to level of danger and abnormality as to invoke a strict liability claim for relief.  This question can be answered by looking at six factors: "the existence of a high degree of risk of harm, the likelihood that the harm resulting will be great, the inability to eliminate risk by the exercise of reasonable care, the extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage, inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried out, and the extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes."  Fierachall v. Nigglewogen, 14 S.P. 633 (1976). 

When a student of law turns his head flat on the pillow to peer into his closet, the boggart that appears would most likely take the shape of a negligence suit.  If not that, then one in defamation.  However, this is no suit in negligence.  It is one in strict liability which should be clearly distinguished as involving no negligence whatsoever on the part of the defendant.  "Law is the glue which holds the macaroni to the paper plates in this sanitarium we call a world.  Without that glue order would not exist."  Albus Dumbledore, The Remembrall, A Law Student's Light In A Sincerely Dark Time, 1750 Hogwarts Sch. L. Review 754 (1987).  It behooves this court to attempt to achieve and to maintain that order spoke of by the very Headmaster of the defendant school. 

A photograph of the Whomping Willow on Hogwarts grounds.

Let us first deal with factor one, as it should be.  The willow is, without a doubt, harmful to a high degree.  With it's flailing branches, short fuse and overall demeanor of fury it would place anyone at the foot of its trunk in a quite precarious situation.  Whomping willows have been known to take their strength out on creatures throughout the land, with rumors of one ancient willow slaying a dragon, albeit a fledgling Norwegian Ridgeback, but a dragon nonetheless.  Though the willow is mighty it seems to possess an "Achille's Heel" at the base of its trunk, a peculiar knot that, when caressed, immobilizes the tree.  Also a simple "Immobulus" curse would do the trick.  However, neither of these solutions could be expected to apparate into the mind of a young second year student.

Let us continue our analysis, for one of these factors alone cannot provide proof of strict liability, but at the same time not all of them have to be present.  Like all things in life, it is a balancing of interests.  We have discussed the gravity of harm to an extent but it is important to take into consideration that this particular type of tree is also carnivorous, though taking in sunlight and water to perform photosynthesis is its main avenue to survival.  "A Whomping Willow regularly consumes birds, insects, and at times small mammals."  Frinkle, Amelia. Monster Book of Monsters. p. 147. (1990)  Though young Weasley could be classified as a small mammal, human beings are not included in a Whomping Willow's diet.  However, a brush with a Whomping Willow of this size would certainly be a brush with death.

Regarding the third factor, it would be exceptionally difficult for The Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry to eliminate the risk of harm that is created by having a Whomping Willow on school grounds.    Perhaps a shield charm or large gate to deter physical entities but either of those are easily overcome by any mischievous, insightful student wizard.  For it was just this year that the mysterious Chamber of Secrets had been opened by the like.  As for the fourth matter, common usage, Whomping Willows are quite rare and nearing extinction.  Obtaining one would be quite impracticable and it is one of the distinguishing marks of beauty that sets Hogwarts School apart from other wizarding institutions.  But as is so often true, in beauty lies danger.  That danger was experienced and it was one that is quite uncommon.

As for the fifth factor, inappropriateness is an issue that often falls into that gray abyss of relativity.  Though it may contribute to the beauty of the school a Whomping Willow may be too dangerous.  However, "part of a proper education for a young witch or wizard includes learning to appreciate the wonder of a magical world but at the same time respect for those inexplicably magical creatures."  Gilderoy Lockhart, Justice: Methinks It's But A Thestral In The Mist, 1754 Hogwarts Sch. L. Review 232 (1991).   Having a Whomping Willow may be an appropriate choice for a school such as Hogwarts to accomplish this objective.  This would bring us to our final factor which requires us to take into account the extent to which the value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.  The Whomping Willow both aesthetically improves the school grounds and contributes to the understanding of the young witches and wizards however, these redeeming qualities are of but nominal significance when compared to the danger imposed.  Because of this as well as other factors taken into consideration we deem Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry strictly liable for any harm caused by its Whomping Willow for which it has full ownership of.

Hogwarts does, however, assert the defense of contributory negligence on the part of Ronald Weasley.  Hogwarts claims that by flying his father's Ford Angilia recklessly over the school grounds, young Weasley was contributorily negligent and therefore the school should be shielded from liability.  Though a defense of contributory negligence would act as an invisibility cloak once liability attempted to find our defendant, this court has never recognized that defense in a strict liability action and therefore it must be pooh-poohed.  Only when a plaintiff voluntarily or unreasonably encounters a known risk will the defendant be shielded fully from liability.  This defense is known as the assumption of risk.  Because plaintiff Weasley had only first discovered the Whomping Willow after being subjected to its surly branches we are inclined to reject even that defense had it been raised properly by defendant.

Justice is often times found drinking in its own reflection in front of the Mirror of Erised.  But not today.  Our vote is unanimous.  We believe that the Court of Appeals as well as the trial court were correct in their decision to hold for the boy Weasley though his actions were reckless and equally irrational. 

SO LET IT BE WRITTEN, SO LET IT BE DONE, we hereby AFFIRM the lower court's judgment.