So I remain confused, would any injury to DX resulting from said tongue waggling be considered a tort or not?

If DX wanted to institute a tort action on a negligence theory he'd have to prove that the injury was proximately caused by the tongue waggler, that injury through tongue waggling is foreseeable, that a reasonable person would not have engaged in the dangerous activity of tongue waggling, and that the tongue waggler owed a duty of care to him that was breached. In jurisdictions which impose strict liability on tongue wagglers for the injuries caused - because the activity is inherently dangerous - all DX would have to prove was that his injury was proximately caused by the waggling.

Ouch!!!

Maybe that was a bit more than you wanted to know.

ETA: And another slutty number score. I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way.

So Nutty's a tongue waggling tort tart?

considers waggling tongue at Wolf.

decides it would be safest not to.

If DX wanted to institute a tort action on a negligence theory he'd have to prove that the injury was proximately caused by the tongue waggler, that injury through tongue waggling is foreseeable, that a reasonable person would not have engaged in the dangerous activity of tongue waggling, and that the tongue waggler owed a duty of care to him that was breached. In jurisdictions which impose strict liability on tongue wagglers for the injuries caused - because the activity is inherently dangerous - all DX would have to prove was that his injury was proximately caused by the waggling.

Impressive.

Impressive.

And you can use that on the bar. Provided it fits the fact pattern, and you're insane.

I'm not sure duty of care fits up there in a positive tort, but I always had trouble putting together the elements of a tort. I'm impressed you still can.

Nah, I made all that up. The most important things to remember about the practice of law is to write with conviction and always cover your ass. ;)

My favorite legalese is "Upon information and belief".