I've pulled a muscle in my shoulder, which at least makes a change from putting my back out. Only myself to blame, I suppose, for persisting in carrying huge bags up and down the country, and then continuing to carry only slightly smaller bags containing laptops and those instruments of torture I call "my new shoes" up and down the Northern Line every day; and hanging the lot off one shoulder.
I've been fairly busy this week, the more so because I'm off to sunny Bath this weekend.... and oh, it's springlike, and a semi-holiday week, and I don't feel like work. I console myself every morning by having coffee in the mad Polish café (as opposed to the mad Russian café) in Primrose Hill before sauntering into work around 10, but the upshot is I then have to bang on with the stuff into the evening. I need a personal time-manager.
Still, at least one of my cases has a black humour all of its own. Legal cases often do, though you have to have a certain cast of mind to see it (and, of course, some have no redeeming features whatsoever: a case I had a while back recommending approval of a settlement on behalf of a child almost had me in tears and feeling I was far too soft-hearted for this game).
I remember in a negligence lecture being taught about Baker v. Willoughby  AC 467:
"The plaintiff was crossing a main highway when he was struck by the defendant's car, as a result of which he sustained injuries to his left leg. Both the plaintiff and the defendant had a full view of each other for at least 200 yards prior to the collision and yet neither took any evasive action. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages in respect of his injuries, but shortly before the hearing of his action he was shot in the left leg during an armed robbery, and his left leg had to be amputated immediately...."
a major authority on concurrent tortfeasors causing related losses, because the Court of Appeal said, essentially, that he could only have damages for the road accident up to the time he in fact lost his leg anyway.
The House of Lords eventually held that:
"(2) That the plaintiff's disability could be regarded as having two causes and where, as here, the later injuries merely became a concurrent cause of the disabilities caused by the injury inflicted by the defendant they could not diminish the amount of damages payable by him, and that, accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to the sum of £1,200 originally awarded by way of general damages."
Quite right too, logically as well as by gut feeling, but the point is that we decided to find the story highly amusing and a welcome spot of light relief (the lecturer did tell it very well).
Ho hum. Huge congrats; fingers crossed and best of luck; and my sympathy; to the various people who need those things right now.