— Well yes by all means, I…
— By all means yes, yes we are in agreement then aren't we, after all our friendship goes all the way back to my hospital visit before these lawyers came between us simply to line their own pockets as they say? or as we say I should say, which is to say you could hardly be blamed for disclaiming the generous No Fault provision of your coverage which had come into being for the protection of persons like yourself over the vigorous opposition of the powerful lobby of trial lawyers like the one who took your case originally.
— Well he ought to be shot yes, he…
— I'm afraid that would only introduce new complications not included under your coverage, now to return to the matter at hand. When he filed to have you disclaim your No Fault coverage we had no recourse but to claim immunity as insurers of the car's owner and you are now seeking to recover under your coverage as the accident victim?
— More or less, yes.
— Yes. This motion filed on your behalf seeks to ensure that the controversy will take place in an adversary context since the court would lack jurisdiction to render judgment without adversary parties appearing before it whether, I have a few notes here from our legal department may I refer to them? bringing forth a sheaf of papers, licking a thumb — whether natural or artificial persons yes, you as plaintiff claiming bodily injuries being recognized as a natural person.
— Well what else would…
— Of course yes, as a party named in the record they've apparently listed them here under several categories, necessary parties, formal parties, indispensable parties, proper parties, indispensable parties being of course necessary parties who must take part in an action either as defendants or plaintiffs and indispensable parties those who must be included in an action in order for it to proceed, both of them signifying parties who should be joined in a proceeding though there has been some disagreement over the degree of such obligation expressed by the word should.
— Mister Gribble, I think…
— I agree yes, words always cause such problems don't they when it becomes less a matter of their actual meaning than their interpretation, take the word should here, I use it quite frequently myself without thinking twice about the…
— Mister Gribble listen! I'm quite busy, can't we cut through all this talk about parties and come to the point?
— But that's why I've come all the way out here to see you Mister Crease, I had a terrible time finding the place but we want to be certain of protecting your legal rights before you sign anything in your pursuit of justice, I believe you used that phrase yourself the last time we…
— Before signing what.
— Yes we'll come to that, but first may we clear up this matter of one person as both plaintiff and defendant in the same action? licking his thumb again, flurrying pages — suing in one capacity and defending in the other which creates certain problems, if you follow me.
— But I'm the victim, you just said that yourself didn't you? that I'm suing as the victim?
— Of course, yes, which means you need to find the defendant guilty of negligence as the proximate cause of your injuries, but that is to say even once negligence is established, since the scope of the defendant's liability can be no greater than the duty of care he owes to the plaintiff, he has not breached his duty if he has no duty and therefore he has no liability, and so in this case I suppose you would take the position that you owe a duty of care to yourself?
— Well obviously, that's what the whole…
— Do you happen to serve in the capacity of a public officer anywhere Mister Crease? licking his thumb again, turning pages.
— As what? Good God no, why.
— Because apparently the rule is confined to natural persons and as an individual you could join in a suit against yourself as a public officer, because this is where things get somewhat complicated. As they say here, whether an action is in contract or in tort, you see what I mean, the rule that one person cannot take the position of both plaintiff and defendant will not apply so long as the case does not add up to one party against himself. To put it in plain language you might almost say that this is a suit between who you are and who you think you are, the question being which one is the plaintiff and which one is the defen…
— Well I, here where are my glasses, give me that! and he seized the fluttering pages. — Do you know Montaigne?
— I'm afraid not no, is he someone you…
— Where he says it's a hard task to be always the same man? flipping a page over — there is as much difference between us and ourselves as there is between us and other people, they're practically quoting Montaigne right here aren't they? Since the presumption is in favour of the judgment, even though the plaintiff and defendant bear the same name it is presumed they are different persons?
— I see your point Mister Crease, but bringing in your friend as a third party can only complicate things further unless, of course, he might join the suit as a formal party in establishing negligence as the proximate cause of your…
— Of whose negligence, that's what this is all about isn't it? I'm the victim aren't I?
— Yes yes of course, but I think you'll see something in there about contributory negligence that needs clearing up? When the plaintiffs injuries are equally likely to have been caused by his own improper conduct and standing in front of the vehicle Mister Crease, by standing directly in front of the vehicle with the hood raised restricting your vision when you tampered with the wiring in order to start it might be considered improp…
— No wait, wait a minute, I don't like the word tampered there Mister Gribble. I was simply wait, here it is, contributory negligence is never a defense to strict liability but often the opposite is held? They'll have it both ways won't they, if it can be shown that the user was proceeding against a known unreasonable danger I was simply trying to start the damn car wasn't I? or this? in making no use of the product except to be injured by it do you think I'm mad?
— I think no, no I don't think we should take that course Mister Crease I don't think it's included in your coverage and…
— All right listen, here it is listen, that a damage-feasant motor vehicle may be joined as a party in an action against the driver of the vehicle.
— But I understand there was no driver?
— I was the driver I simply wasn't driving, how could I drive it without starting it.
— I see your point yes but, yes we probably should have a lawyer here to help us with these finer distinct…
— We don't need one, you just said that yourself didn't you? It's all here look, even the citation Brown v. Quinn 220 S.C. 426, 68 SE.2d 326 and the damage-feasant motor vehicle, it's standing right outside there didn't you see it?
— I did yes, yes but suing the car would not be exactly the…
— We're not suing the car! We're joining the damn thing as a party in the action a necessary indispensable formal proper artificial person do you want some coffee or something? tea? Lily, are you out there?
— No, no thank you I know how busy you are, I haven't wanted to take so much of your valuable time Mister Crease but it seemed only fair to you to review the range of legal complications you might confront in a long drawn out expensive lawsuit which we wish to help you avoid, and of course under the circumstances the possibility cannot be ruled out that your suit as the victim might not prevail as a party who should be joined in a, there's that word should again, would you mind giving me back those papers?