Guess I Should Have Narrowed My Search...
Found this on LexisNexis recently while searching for parental liability and underage drinking.
John Doe v. Mary Moe (P.S. That's gonna be my DJ name)
"While engaged in consensual sexual intercourse, plaintiff was lying on his back while defendant was on top of him. Defendant unilaterally decided to unlock her legs and place her feet on either side of plaintiff's abdomen. When defendant changed her position, she did not think about the possibility of injury to plaintiff. Shortly after taking this new position, defendant landed awkwardly on plaintiff, thereby causing him to suffer a penile fracture. The appellate court held that there were no comprehensive legal rules to regulate consensual sexual behavior and there were no commonly accepted customs or values that determined parameters for the intensely private and widely diverse forms of such behavior. In the absence of a consensus of community values or customs defining normal consensual sexual conduct, a jury or judge could not be expected to resolve a claim that certain consensual sexual conduct was undertaken without reasonable care. Therefore, no duty of reasonable care was owed by defendant. The appellate court further held that the record did not depict conduct that could be categorized as wanton or reckless. Thus, the action was properly dismissed."
John Doe v. Mary Moe (P.S. That's gonna be my DJ name)
"While engaged in consensual sexual intercourse, plaintiff was lying on his back while defendant was on top of him. Defendant unilaterally decided to unlock her legs and place her feet on either side of plaintiff's abdomen. When defendant changed her position, she did not think about the possibility of injury to plaintiff. Shortly after taking this new position, defendant landed awkwardly on plaintiff, thereby causing him to suffer a penile fracture. The appellate court held that there were no comprehensive legal rules to regulate consensual sexual behavior and there were no commonly accepted customs or values that determined parameters for the intensely private and widely diverse forms of such behavior. In the absence of a consensus of community values or customs defining normal consensual sexual conduct, a jury or judge could not be expected to resolve a claim that certain consensual sexual conduct was undertaken without reasonable care. Therefore, no duty of reasonable care was owed by defendant. The appellate court further held that the record did not depict conduct that could be categorized as wanton or reckless. Thus, the action was properly dismissed."
