I wanted a better understanding of Champerty and decided to use Wikipedia as a quick method of obtaining it.  From there I view the link on Tort and came across a fun paragraph.  Now read this with the following picture in your head.

• Alice is a young girl, about 10 years old.  She just got into 5th grade and want to make sure that everyone around her knows.
• Brenda is the smart kid in the 4th grade who can't think straight today after the joy of receiving a big red bouncy ball from her father serving in Iraq as a present.  When she hugs the ball and closes her eye she can still envision him standing there similing and waving at her as he drives away to his 3rd tour of duty.
• Westbrook Grade School, located in Toledo, Ohio has just started their new 'mix-grade' recess plan. 

And now, with that setup, I qoute, Wikipedia on Tort:

For instance, Alice steals a ball and accidentally hits Brenda in the eye. Brenda may sue Alice for losses occasioned by the accident (e.g., costs of medical treatment, lost income during time off work, and pain and suffering). Whether or not Brenda wins her suit depends on if she can prove Alice engaged in tortious conduct. Here, Brenda would attempt to prove Alice had a duty and failed to exercise the standard of care which a reasonable person would render in throwing the ball.

This made my morning.  If this was a movie, it would show Brenda in the library, glossing over John Cooke's 'Law of Tort, 9th Edition' with the song 'Eye of the Tiger' playing in the background while Alice sits with her jock boyfriend, Thadd, practicing her debating.  Over the music you can see her standing over Thadd in her mother's make-up and oversized powersuit saying:

... and it clearly shows that Dobson v. Dobson* applies here.  Brenda's father was negligent giving a 4th grader that ball in the same way Mrs. Dobson, 27 weeks pregnant, was  negligent to her unborn child by driving recklessly.  Your honor, Brenda has a case here, but not against me, but against her ...  (points off to the side) FATHER!

Thadd tries to leans back, not knowing if the reach of Kudies is affected by a female's emotional condition...

There is a movie treatment here somewhere.  I am sure of it.

* Dobson v. Dobson is a real case, but in Canada so it would not apply here.  Is there any US case law that is similar?