About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

48 Am. J. Juris. 179 (2003)
Infancy, Insanity, and Infirmity in the Law of Torts

handle is hein.journals/ajj48 and id is 183 raw text is: INFANCY, INSANITY, AND INFIRMITY IN THE LAW OF TORTS* PATRICK KELLEY** I. INTRODUCTION On March 30, 1981, John Hinckley, Jr. opened fire on the President of the United States as he left a Washington D.C. restaurant and headed for his wait- ing limousine. President Reagan was shot, as was his press secretary, Jim Brady, a secret service agent, Timothy McCarthy, and a Metropolitan police officer, Thomas Delahanty. It turned out that Hinckley was mentally ill, and he fired at Reagan because his mental illness led him to believe that shooting Reagan would cause Jodie Foster, a young movie actress, to fall in love with him. In his criminal trial, Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity.1 Brady, Delahanty and McCarthy later sued Hinckley in a tort action for shooting them. Hinckley, whose family had substantial assets, was represented by the law firm of Williams & Connolly, one of the best firms in the country. They filed a motion for summary judgment, on the grounds that Hinckley's insanity, authoritatively determined in the prior criminal trial, should bar any tort action against him. The Williams & Connolly attorneys evidently argued that the court should reject the old rule that an insane actor is liable for his torts, because the rule is outmoded, unjustified, and inconsistent with the more lenient tort law applicable to the physically disabled, including in particular those suddenly stricken with an unforeseeable physical illness.2 The court denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and reaffirmed the old * Infancy, insanity, and infirmity were the words used by judges until the latter half of the 20th century. We no longer use these words; some think they are demeaning, unscientific, and inappropriate. In the body of the paper the modem usage is followed except when it would not be historically accurate. The old words are used in the title not to revel in archaism but to suggest that the judges who used those words may still have something to teach us. ** The author thanks Gerard Bradley, John Finnis, Alan Gunn, and Steve Norris for helpful comments, and The Olin Foundation for sponsoring the lecture series that included the forerunner of this paper. 1. United States v. John W Hinckley, Jr., Findings and Order, Criminal number 81-306, August 10, 1982, United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 2. See Delahanty v. Hinckley, 799 F. Supp. 184, at 186-87 and note 4 (D.C. Dist Ct. 1992).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most