I've got a golden ticket... to a torts claim

So Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was on at the gym yesterday and as I watched I started to realize that I AM in fact learning to think like a lawyer... I guess a good sign, re my legal education. but a sad one re my ability to enjoy childhood movies.

For instance, I watched as Augustus Gloop greedily drank from the chocolate river and waited on edge for him to clumsily fall in, idiot that he is. I remember thinking how oafish and rude he was and that he deserved what he got. Hell, even the Oompa Loompas reaffirmed this thought as each child that did something selfish was punished one by one as the factory tour continued.

But here is the thing.

Wonka is totally liable, especially for the chocolate river fiasco. He was a social host in that he invited the ticket holders and their guests into his factory and so he owed his guests a standard of reasonable care. He should have foreseen the possibility that after telling his guests "everything is edible! Go ahead!" someone might attempt to drink from the river. "Oh, you mustn't contaminate my river! It must be untouched by human hands!" Well, it's a little too late for that, isn't it Wonka? There were no signs. There was no fence. I have to admit, I'm a little sympathetic to Augustus, especially since he was the first one to go and had no warning that things could go terribly wrong on this factory tour. PLUS he was one of the only foreigners. What's that about? I guess that's a side issue. My point is, while I really like Willy Wonka (and Roald Dahl), in an American court system Wonka would be negligently liable if any harm was caused to Augustus by being caught in those pipes for too long.

And what about Violet? Well, there was warning there with the gum and she ate it anyway. However, Wonka DID just sit idly by then and watch her chew. Maybe not the smartest legal move. Verruca? I'd say she became a trespasser once she went to get a goose (or squirrel, depending on which version you're watching) and yet it arguably constitutes an attractive nuisance for which an owner is liable towards children, even if the child was not originally attracted onto the premises by the condition that injures her. PLUS one who possesses animals not customarily domesticated in that region is strictly liable for all harm done by the animal as a result of a harmful or dangerous propensity or characteristic of such animals. If it is your animal's propensity to haul small children to their deaths, you miiiight be facing a lawsuit. And finally, Mike Teevee? Again, Wonka really didnt try to hard to protect that kid from the shrinking television rays of doom.

Overall, that factory was a major tort suit waiting to happen. I think if I ever become a torts professor, I will use it as my final exam. I wonder if anyone has ever tried that before....