It Was Just For Fun Until Her Lawyers Came After Me; The Legal Consequences Of April Fool Prank

On April 1, 2023, around 10 a.m., Kwame Twum had the news that the day was “April Fool,” so he decided to play his usual annual prank on some of his friends. He called one of his childhood friends, Millicent, who is now married with two kids (and even pregnant again), that her first son, Kofi Bonteh (5-year-old boy) has swallowed 50 pesewas coin while he was playing with his colleague friends at school that morning and had been admitted to the emergency unit at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital for quick surgery. Kwame Twum, who had the intention of just playing a prank on Millicent in the name of “April Fool” ended in a different story.

Madam Millicent, upon hearing this sad news concerning her beloved son, suffered a nervous shock and went unconscious instantly. She was admitted to the hospital, where she paid thousands of cedis as medical bills. Madam Millicent, who is also known to be a tomato seller at Kumasi Central Market, had all her 50 boxes of tomatoes rotten since she could not go on market as a result of her health condition.

Now the question arises: whether Kwame Twum should not be penalized since he never had the intention of causing any harm to Madam Millicent, and also whether the fact that the day was April fool day suffices as a defense for Kwame Twum to escape the legal liability, if any.

This piece of writing would answer the above legal question by first giving a brief history of “April Fool”, and determining whether the above question would be answered positively. If so, under what circumstances can one be sued for just playing pranks on someone? The last part would entail a general conclusion on this legal issue.

BRIEF HISTORY OF APRIL FOOL
The origin of the “April Fool” can be traced to a custom that originated in France. This was when France switched from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar. This switch of calendar changed the celebration of the New Year from April 1 to January 1. People who did not know of the change in calendar and still celebrated the New Year on April 1 were mocked and referred to as “poisson d`arvril,” meaning “April fish.” With time, this practice spread across many countries, including Ghana where pranks are played on unsuspected people on this day with the intention of sending the victim on an errand and also sharing exaggerated fake news with the victims. In fact, April fool’s day is a day of fun and laughter, especially in the rural areas.

UNDER WHICH CIRCUMSTANCES CAN APRIL FOOL PRANKSTER BE SUED IN CIVIL COURT ON GROUND OF HIS PRANK PLAYED ON THE CLAIMANT

The position of the law is that for a prankster to be held liable for any harm or damage caused to a victim by his prank, there must be the following elements:

1. There must be a deliberate false statement made by the prankster to the victim. Thus, the joke or the statement that the prankster made to the victim must be one that is not true.

2. The statement or the joke in question must be one that a prudent person acting reasonably can foresee or anticipate to cause harm or damage to the victim (objective test). The court may also consider the prank in question to see whether it is capable by on its own to cause harm or damage the victim (subjective test)

3. The victim (claimant) must prove to the court that he or she has suffered some form of harm or damage which may be in the form of physical harm, psychiatric (nervous shock) harm, and (or) financial (economic loss). This element posits that a prank played on a victim is not actionable per se, meaning the victim must suffer some form of harm or loss due to the prank in question before the prankster can be held guilty.

The above principles and elements were derived from the popular case of WILKINSON V DOWNTON [1897] 2 QB 57, which led to the development of the rule known as “The Rule In Wilkinson v. Downton.” In that case, the defendant went to Wilkinson`s house and played some form of practical joke on her that her, saying that her husband has involved in a very serious accident such that both legs of her husband have broken and he is lying in a pool of blood, and he had requested that her wife should come with a cab (taxi) to get him. All those statements were false, the defendant was just playing a joke on Mrs. Wilkinson. However, Mrs. Wilkinson upon hearing this sad news about her husband had an instant nervous shock, started vomiting which later transformed into other physical consequences that were not a result of her previous sickness. She spent a large sum of money on her medical expenses. Despite the fact that it was just a joke, the court held the defendant (Downton) liable for the harm caused and ordered him to compensate her for the medical expenses and the harm she suffered.

CONSIDERING THE RULE UNDER WILINSON V. DOWNTON, SHOULD MR. TWUM BE PUNISHED FOR THE NERVOUS SHOCK MRS. MILLICENT SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF HIS APRIL FOOL PRANK OR THE FACT THAT THE DAY WAS AN APRIL FOOL SUFFICE AS A VALID LEGAL DEFENCE?

From the position of the law discussed above, it is apparent that Mr. Twum will not go scot-free from the harm caused since his conduct fits exactly into the elements espoused in the Wilkinson v. Downtown case.

1. It is evidently clear from the story that Mr. Twum’s statement, which says Mrs. Millicent`s firstborn swallowed a coin in school was false.

2. It is obvious that any reasonable person in the position of Downton would foresee that playing that kind of joke on a mother who is even pregnant is likely to cause some form of harm to her.

3. Lastly, Mrs. Millicent suffered nervous shock (psychiatric harm), which transformed into physical illness. She also suffered economic loss since her fifty (50) boxes of tomatoes, which she sells at Kumasi Central Market got rotten while she was on hospital admission. Lastly, she incurred financial losses on her medical bills, therefore making her case actionable in civil court.

CONCLUSION
The conclusion and aim of this piece of article is one. That is the mere fact that a day is April 1, and is widely known as a day for pranks does not legally guarantee that one can play any kind of prank on anyone go scot-free. It is worth noting that this rule or law is not limited to only friends and family but extends to pranks on the emergency services, including the fire service and ambulance service, as well as the security service such as the police service and the other security agencies. Remember, if care is not taken, you may start your April fool with happiness and laughter and go to bed as a defendant in civil court.

DISCLAIMER
This write-up is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are accordingly advised to seek professional counsel for their legal issues.

MOHAMMED AWAL
LL.B CANDIDATE
KNUST FACULTY OF LAW
GMAIL: [email protected]
REFERENCES
HTTPS://WWW.BRITANNICA.COM/TOPIC/APRIL-FOOLS-DAY> ACCESSED ON 28 MARCH 2024.

Martin Waana-Ang and Nana Nti Ofori-Debrah; A Practical Guide to Law of Torts In Ghana (second edition), October 2023.