Introduction
The tort law deals with civil wrongs for which the victim side may ask for a remedy. It is important because it imposes liabilities on those who cause harm to others. The main idea behind it is to compensate the harm to property or health by awarding the sufferer with corresponding monetary damages (Horsey and Rackley 24). The latter may be applied to restore someone’s health, property, lost salary, or relieve mental and physical pain. Dwarf-tossing was both a popular pub and tavern attraction and one of the limited ways people with dwarfism could earn money. Nowadays, it is outlawed in Florida to toss a little person in bars and sports facilities as far as possible to secure their health and dignity. Nevertheless, another side of the debate, including Judge Neomi Rao, backs abolishing such prohibitions as limiting liberties and freedom of particular social groups. Tort law cannot effectively redress injury both to the dignity and health of the majority of people who may be engaged in such attractions.
Dwarf-Throwing and Harm
This pub entertainment requires little people who wear special clothes and use equipment to be thrown by patrons. According to Nover, this attraction came to the US from Australia, where it was performed for the first time. In this case, dwarfs are paid actors who usually express their consent and even sign an agreement with the employer. It means that they voluntarily chose this activity and bear in mind all possible risks to their health. In turn, the event organizers must provide minimal safety levels by allocating Velcro walls or mattresses and offering personal safety equipment. Nevertheless, dwarf-throwing is known for a myriad of possible injuries, including harm to the head and neck. For instance, in 2011, England’s professional rugby player cruelly tossed actor Martin Henderson (Diebelius). The prank ended in severe injuries received by Henderson that significantly hindered his ability to walk. In such cases when there is no consent from the abused person, tort law would be effective. The injured person should receive all needed compensation for medical purposes and as compensation for pain suffered.
Dwarf-Tossing and Dignity
The Little People of America believe that this practice causes significant psychological harm to short stature people that is difficult to compensate (Eldridge). Even when actors with dwarfism voluntarily take part in this attraction, it continues to insult other representatives of the dwarf community, contributing to the stereotype’s perpetuation. Tort law is based on an individualistic approach dealing with the results of the interaction between two distinct sides. In the case of dwarf-tossing, it is essential to look at the issue from a broader perspective. Tort law may be enough to protect those individuals with dwarfism who want to participate in pub’s shows and earn money. They can be officially involved, similar to actors, stunt performers, or professional athletes whose occupation also involves a high risk of injury. However, it is hardly seen that it will restore dignity and compensate for the feelings of the whole society of people with short stature.
In other words, it is not possible to fully restore someone’s health as it was in the case of Henderson, who remained partially disabled. Tort law apparently cannot change how society perceives dwarfs and their role in the world. Even when the plaintiff receives enough damages to compensate for health issues and restore dignity, it does not significantly encourage others to change their attitude except the defendant. For that reason, the Little People of America’s line of reasoning seems to be more relevant here. As Nover reports, dwarf-tossing bans support the latter’s struggle to acquire a stable position in society. Those people do not want to be seen as characters; they instead want society to perceive them as people with real works, families, and feelings.
Tort Law Shortcomings
On the contrary, prohibitions outlaw similar actions, both contractual and occasional, by setting it more within criminal justice instead of civil one. It is where the major limitation of tort law becomes evident. Crimes are seen as intentional wrongdoings that threaten the whole society. In contrast, torts directly cause personal or property damages to the person. In other words, Florida’s and New York’s ban on dwarf-tossing constitute a broader approach to social protection despite cutting the economic freedom of dwarfs (Nover). Taking into consideration opinions expressed by Little People of America, it becomes evident that individuals with short stature see the prohibition of dwarf-throwing as a type of legal compensation the government can provide to propel their status in society to be equal to ordinary-sized people.
What is more, under tort law, pubs and sports organizations that receive consent from dwarfs could be liable for negligence when they breach a duty of care. The injured party would have to prove that there is the duty of care established by law and violated by the defendant (Horsey and Rackley 59). Another problem is that absence of prohibition opens room for the possible contractual relationship between event organizers and people subjected to dwarf-throwing. Such contracts reflect the agreement of the parties regarding its provisions and the absence of coercion. It also indicates that they both aware of possible adverse consequences and may even regulate the damages. In this case, the unlimited measure for damages under tort can be determined and limited by the concluded contract provisions. Although it is possible to file both claims simultaneously, possible contracts may hinder the tort-based mechanism of vulnerable social groups’ protection.
Conclusion
To conclude, Judge Reo’s position stemming from constitutional law principles rejects the need for broader legal tools to protect the rights of dwarfs and make them equal to others. Dwarf-tossing may be a voluntary choice for some of them; however, it undermines their whole society’s dignity. Tort law is limited to particular situations, and tort liability may be further reduced in line with a possible contractual relationship. It is able to redress one’s dignity and physical body at least partially, but it fails to initiate civil change within broader society despite embedded deterrence. On the contrary, Florida prohibition is able to mitigate tort law shortcomings and improve the everyday safety of dwarfed people.
Works Cited
Diebelius, Georgia. “Actor who Was Injured During Cruel’ Dwarf Tossing’ Event has Died Aged 42.” Metro, Web.
Eldridge, Keith. “It’s Not Okay: Victims Share Testimonies at Hearing to Ban Dwarf Tossing.” KOMO News, Web.
Horsey, Kirsty, and Erika Rackley. Tort Law. 5th ed., Oxford University Press, 2017.
Nover, Scott. “How a Trump Judicial Nominee Reignited the Debate over Dwarf Tossing.” The Washington Post, Web.