A court has taken “judicial notice” of the following:
It is a well-recognized fact that big persons fall harder than small ones.
Garbutt v. Schechter, 334 P.2d 225 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)
Judicial notice means that a fact is widely known to be true and uncontrovertible, so that no evidence is necessary for the court to take it as evidence.
Is it true that bigger people fall with more force than smaller ones? I’m aware of the accepted physics of the speed of two falling objects, but that would not seem to address what the court is saying here.
Someone I knew a long time ago - early 1990s - tripped on a lump in a sidewalk (Boulder, CO) and badly broke his arm as he fell.
He attempted to sue the city, but lost for much the same reason, I imagine, as the cite provided in the OP. He was grossly obese and IIRC, it was tossed out because if he’d been of “normal” weight, this wouldn’t have happened - as since he was a very fat man, he should have exercised a greater degree of caution than “normal” when walking. Something along those lines, anyway.
It’s the square cube law The force of the fall is related to your mass which is related to the cube of your length. Your resistance to the force is related to the cross-sectional area of your bones or the square of of your length. So as a function of length your falling energy/resistance to falls = (L)^3/(L)^2 =L. So the bigger you are the less resistance you have relative to the hardness of your fall. This is why ants can fall from the top of the ceiling and be unharmed, but you can’t.
Isn’t there a rule known casually as the Eggshell Skull rule that seems to apply? If he had been obese or of normal weight doesn’t matter, only that the sidewalk was defective. Or am I misconstruing that rule?