Court of Petty Appeals: Albino Squirrel v. UVA Football Fans
Albino Squirrel
v.
UVA Football Fans
78 U.Va 7 (2025)
Demitry, C.J., delivers the opinion of the Court, in which Wu, Vanger, and Berklich, J.J. join.
Moore, J., dissents.
Demitry, C. J., delivers the opinion of the Court.
I. Facts of the Case
The plaintiff, a rare sciurus carolinensis albino, is an animal of delicate constitution and questionable judgment. Put differently, like most UVA students, he is white and overconfident [about his ability to navigate Scott Stadium on a Friday night]. On the evening of Friday, October 26, the plaintiff found himself in the endzone of Scott Stadium during a football game between the University of Virginia Cavaliers and the Florida State University (“FSU”) Seminoles.
Following UVA’s victory—a statistical anomaly made possible only by FSU’s uncanny ability to lose when least expected—thousands of students, alumni, and opportunistic Charlottesville residents rushed the field in celebration. The plaintiff was, regrettably, trampled in the melee.
Rather than seek acorns in quieter quadrants of Grounds, plaintiff instead seeks remedies in law, alleging the following causes of action:
Negligence against the assembled UVA football fans for charging the field without first conducting a squirrel-safety audit.
Vicarious liability against stadium security, for failing to erect barriers high enough to repel both students and squirrels.
Negligence against Florida State University, for playing so poorly as to incite the rush in the first place.
Unjust enrichment against Florida State wide receiver Squirrel White, who, despite being a wholly different Squirrel, received national sympathy and even a Nike drawstring bag following the incident. Plaintiff insists that these intangible benefits that Squirrel received after his own respective trampling—“thoughts and prayers,” as well as lightly used athletic gear—should rightfully have accrued to him, the far cuter albino squirrel.
Plaintiff seeks damages in the form of: (1) “thoughts and prayers,” payable on a continuing basis; and (2) one Nike drawstring bag cut directly from White’s bag, logo intact “for brand recognition.”
II. Opinion of the Court
A. Negligence of the UVA Football Fans
The Court holds that no duty was owed by the football fans to the plaintiff. By placing himself in the endzone of Scott Stadium, plaintiff knowingly assumed the risk of UVA victory celebration—rare, but catastrophically unsafe. To impose a duty of care in such circumstances would contradict this Court’s longstanding recognition of the University’s “history and tradition of jackassery.” See Cadre of Drunken “Mad Bowl” Easters ’75 Participants v. Board of Visitors, 28 U.Va 21 (1975) (upholding the right of upperclassmen to imperil public health in pursuit of vibes, and recognizing UVA’s history of moral turpitude). The law does not require UVA students to exercise self-restraint, a skill they demonstrably lack and that the University itself has failed to cultivate, right up there with affordable housing, transparent grading, and a functioning Honor System. See Jefferson Council v. Richard “King of the Outlines” Weedeater, 74 U.Va 14 (2021) (holding that the proper administration of the Honor System was a political question best left to the University president); Aggrieved Charlottesvillians v. Estate of Thomas Jefferson 2 U.Va 7 (1949). Indeed, expecting restraint from a student body that treats orange bow ties as evening wear is unreasonable. This Court will not impose a duty of care on a mob that can barely spell “Cavalier.”
Additionally, the plaintiff, being a squirrel, stands approximately sixteen to twenty inches tall. This pales in comparison to the average height of a UVA undergrad, being roughly five foot six inches. It scarcely requires a legal degree to see why attending a raucous football game while this deficient in height is terribly unwise. Plaintiff argues incompetence, citing the common behavior of squirrels to do foolish activity (throwing themselves into oncoming traffic, leaping daringly to and fro among tree branches, and pursuing bad-karmicly-charged nuts to the end of the earth). ICE AGE, Disney+ (2002). However, this self-awareness does not bolster the plaintiff's case, but defeats it. Self-conscious squirrels assume the risk of their own foolhardyness.
B. Vicarious Liability of Stadium Security
Plaintiff contends that stadium security should bear responsibility for his injuries. We disagree. As any Wahoo knows, attempting to place a barrier between UVA students and their chosen form of debauchery is both futile and hazardous. A fence would not stop them; it would merely invite the kind of shirtless, khaki-clad climbing accident for which the University is justly infamous. More to the point, this Court recognizes that UVA’s culture is one in which “no” has historically been treated not as a boundary but as a suggestion to the contrary, and consequences as optional. The Court therefore declines to impose liability on security, which at least had the foresight to recognize that corralling UVA fans is about as effective as corralling Corner rats–except the rats know when to scatter.
C. Negligence of Florida State University
Plaintiff’s charge that Florida State University played “so badly it hurt” is, regrettably, sustained. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Florida State has, at times, fielded a football team of such stunning mediocrity that its opponents are injured not by contact but by the sheer improbability of victory. We therefore hold FSU liable in negligence for performance so deficient that it constituted a proximate cause of the stampede. FSU owes a duty to both themselves, their fans, and apparently this squirrel, to do the best on the field. Unequivocally, they did not do so here. You’ll get’em next time, champ.
D. Unjust Enrichment of Squirrel White
We find that Squirrel White did indeed benefit unjustly. The court is persuaded by photographic evidence that sympathy initially directed toward the plaintiff was misallocated to White, who enjoyed undue acclaim and a Nike bag in which to deposit his pants, soiled in fright after thousands of fans rushed the field. White was fortunately not injured physically, but his pride was slightly bruised. Regardless, we find Albino Squirrel to be in greater need of support in his own trying time, but we refuse to assign blame to our own UVA students. (See the doctrine of Abi in Malam Crucem, Meum Iam Adeptus Sum). Full damages are awarded: restitution requires not only the transference of thoughts and prayers but also delivery of a portion of White’s drawstring bag, unsoiled and logo-visible, cut down to the appropriate size so that a squirrel can hop around campus with it on his back. Perhaps he will use it to hold a little water bottle and a frisbee. Maybe some Zyns. Who knows.
III. Holding
Accordingly, judgment is entered as follows:
NO liability for UVA football fans: plaintiff assumed the risk.
NO liability for stadium security: fences would have made things worse.
Liability for FSU: negligent underperformance of such magnitude as to foreseeably trigger a trampling.
Liability for Squirrel White: unjustly enriched; compelled to provide thoughts, prayers, and an intact piece of his Nike drawstring bag.
It is so ordered.
Moore, J., dissenting.
The Court’s preceding, and sadly precedential, decision is more misguided than the Luthor’s instruments of 1978 (SUPERMAN, HBO (1978)), and dissented from, as its foolhardity and facetiality make it more fitting for fiction than the non-fiction for which this forum is famous. The “aforementioned [decision] by [the] majority trample[s] upon year[s-old]” (BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (6th ed. 1991)) precedents with unsaid rapaciousness that does not go unsaid. See Kendall Roy, Succession: Shit Show at the Fuck Factory. Whilst the majority has cited precedent from the Court in 1949, this ignores the 1949 campus construction. The fact that the construction’s infernal racket posed issues for the accurate transcription of opinions of that year “has been noted in opinions too numerous to warrant citation,” thus rendering the Court’s reliance dubious. C.f. Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 398 F.2d 167 (2d Cir. 1968).
The Court rules that the plaintiff assumed the risk of being trampled in part because they were too short to make their presence known or to protect themself on the field. This discrimination against the rodent and varmint brethren of the city shall not occur without dissent. When confronted with a rodentary request, this court “enjoined [the Commonwealth] from taking any action against the Dewberry Building without . . . consent from the resident rodent electorate.” Rat King et al. v. The Commonwealth of Virginia 77 U.Va 22 (2025). Has the court the memory of a goldfish and forgotten to prioritize varmintian values? The size and stature of the Rat King and his subjects did not make them ineligible for protection. Rather with the compassion this Court is known for, it protected those of such stature. Yet, with the Albino Squirrel, the Court declares that such stature renders them ineligible for the very protection they need. Is the Court discriminating against them for being a squirrel instead of a rat or for just being short?
As the Court has wantonly jettisoned the precedent of Rat King et al. v. The Commonwealth of Virginia, would the Court similarly jettison other judicious judgements and jurisprudence, such as the decision that “when the principal thing is not lawful, then the thing which depends upon it is not lawful”? King’s Bench, 1466. Y.B.M. 6 Edw. IV, folio 7, placitum 18. While the majority may state a preference for precedents of a middle age (though confusingly not one the groundbreaking opinion that explored “whence the Court must onfindaþ precedent” for situations with outcomes judged equally funny and absurd), the precedents of the Middle Ages (and more recent months) must be revered. Jonathan Doe v. Benvin Lozado, 78 U.Va 5 (2025). Admitting the advanced age of the attendant of this case, I must side with the precedents of yesteryear and yester (many) years and dissent with utmost respect from the “foolhardity and facetiality" of the majority decision. Albino Squirrel v. UVA Football Fans, 78 U.Va 7 (2025).