Dear Mirror Lawyer, I am seeking advice on behalf of my friend. Her husband and three children attended a boxing match at the Bukom Boxing Arena.
A regular customer of the husband’s business and a friend played a prank on her.
He falsely told her that her husband and children had been seriously injured in a scuffle at the arena, and that her husband was in a critical condition at the hospital.
He also claimed that their eldest son was in a coma, so she should rush to the hospital. As a result of this false information, she suffered a violent shock to her nervous system and other permanent physical consequences.
Can she sue her husband’s friend for his actions?
Akosua Poma, Korle Bu, Accra
Dear Akosua, it is said that the law has a sense of humour. But it also has limits. So, the principle in the common law of tort is that “You take your victims as you find them.”
This implies that if your joke injures someone, mentally or physically, you are responsible and the law will deal with you for what it is, i.e., harm and not humour.Admittedly, pranks can be fun. It is essential to know that, although pranks are harmless fun, if the person on the receiving end is hurt in any way, the person responsible for the prank could face serious legal consequences. It is important to ensure that any prank does not harm the victim, as it could have serious legal consequences if done improperly.
Pranks can be considered harassment or assault if they cause someone physical or emotional harm. It is important to understand the legal implications of pranks to avoid potentially serious consequences.
In the celebrated English case of Wilkinson v Downton [1897], a man played a serious joke on his landlady by telling her that her husband had been seriously injured in an accident and broken both his legs, and so she should go to the scene to bring him home. The statement was not true.
He said it just to mess with her. She believed it. She suffered a violent shock to her nervous system, resulting in vomiting, emotional breakdown, and weeks of incapacity, even though she had no prior health issues at the time.
The court presided over by Wright J held that it was no laughing matter because the conduct of the tenant constituted a willful act intended to cause harm, which should have been foreseeable by him.
The tenant was held legally responsible to pay compensation in damages for the illness and suffering caused, even though he called it a joke.
In your case, the scenario you gave fell squarely within the principles in Wilkinson v Downton. Thus, the husband’s friend’s actions meet these criteria. His false statements were made willfully and with the intention of causing harm or distress to her.
As a result, she suffered physical harm, including a violent shock to her nervous system. Therefore, she may have a strong case against her husband’s friend. It is recommended that she seek legal advice to pursue her claim.
