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 stated in a recent ruling that the lawsuit involving two boys in Grande Prairie, Alberta, was uncommon and raised various legal questions regarding capacity.
The incident occurred in 2022 during a summer daycare program run by a non-governmental organization, where the boys, aged nine and eleven, engaged in a scuffle over a toy described by the judge as similar in size to a 500-ml water bottle.
During what was termed a “swatting match,” the defendant used the toy to strike the plaintiff, causing a dislocation fracture to the plaintiff’s ring finger on his right hand. The injury was severe, with the finger almost severed at the bone, necessitating surgery to prevent potential loss.
Fortunately, the plaintiff, now 13, recovered well from the injury, experiencing minimal ongoing issues, according to Hougestol. Despite a video of the altercation existing at the time, it was not presented during the trial, and neither were doctor nor hospital records.
The judge noted that the plaintiff’s recollection of the incident was vague due to the passage of time and his young age at the time. The specifics on who represented the boys in the litigation were unclear, though the plaintiff’s mother was focused on the lack of communication from the defendant’s parents post-injury.
Hougestol clarified that the lack of contact from the defendant’s parents could be attributed to the complex situation involving the third-party daycare, which has since closed. He emphasized that the defendant’s parents did not act negligently in the incident, as there was no evidence of improper supervision, encouragement of violence, or inadequate child-rearing.
The judge concluded that the injury was an unforeseeable accident, not part of a deliberate attack. He highlighted that minor disagreements and altercations among children are normal, and the injury fell within the expected risk scope. Had liability been established, damages sought would have amounted to $10,000 for general damages plus expenses.