Court of Petty Appeals: Law Students on the Brinkv. Grim Reaper

Law Students on the Brink

v. 

Grim Reaper

79 U.Va 2 (2026) 

Lawson, J., delivers the opinion of the Court, in which Berklich and Wu, C.J.J., and Vanger, Boatright, Moore, Lozada, and Koeppel, J.J. join. 

Lawson, J., delivers the opinion of the Court.

Facts

The action du jour was initiated by a coalition of University of Virginia School of Law students from a range of class levels, which were aptly described to the court as “at their absolute wits end,” seeking recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) following the sudden passings of beloved entertainers Dolly Parton and Tim Curry—both of whom left us on August 25, 2026—from the nebulous entity personifying the concept of death itself. 

Though notoriously difficult to pin down, the defendant was successfully served after the frazzled students completed a ritual to peel back the veil between worlds (accomplished with the assistance of the Barracks Shopping Center mall goths) and reached into the depthless void to throttle the Angel of Death like a disobedient goose with their bare hands. The success of the interplanar service is not particularly relevant to the case at hand, but the court insists on including the anecdote on the grounds that it was freaking metal to behold. 

The lower court found in favor of defendant Thanatos, on the grounds that extinguishing the sacred flame of life is part of the reaper’s job description, and that the distress caused by such a duty of employment could not have realistically been sufficiently severe. Emboldened by their mastery of the cold call to the point of challenging death itself for a second time, the plaintiff students now bring the case to us. 

Discussion

The Supreme Court of Virginia has historically shown reluctance to entertain suits seeking recovery for IIED. [1] Fortunately, the reservations of the state supreme court don’t mean a gosh darn thing against the unstoppable pettiness of this one (see Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 1, “We do what we want.”). Thus, we are liberated to examine the merits of this case, free from the favor or disfavor of any superior court. 

Actions for IIED are recognized when the defendant has taken intentional or reckless action which was extreme, outrageous, and intolerable, and which has caused severe emotional distress. In most legal contexts, the killing of any person would be sufficient to satisfy a requirement of outrageousness. However, the court recognizes that the cosmic nature of the defendant warrants a reexamination of this point. In the words of the defendant: “Dude, this is literally just my nine to five. Just crossing the names off the list like St. Nick, my guy. No hard feelings, ya dig?” The court declines to dig. Though an exception could be made in light of the fact that the spooky scary skeleton guy with the scythe is literally made for taking lives, the fact remains that the defendant chose to take these lives. Dolly Parton. And Tim Curry. The court doesn’t care how inescapable the cyclical tragedies of the cosmos are; you don’t kill Dolly Parton and Tim Curry on the same day. Or ever. 

What must additionally be considered here is the fact that beloved Canadian-American actress and comedienne Catherine O’Hara was also cruelly taken from this world only seven short months ago. A fact that the defendant would have had full knowledge of at the time of the incidents on August 25, having personally reaped her spirit as well. With the loss of O’Hara, Curry, and Parton all in the same year, this court has no doubt that the defendant has acted with recklessness—bordering on outright malice—for the emotional well-being of all living people (or at least all living people who were told to “cool it on the eyeliner” in middle school).  

The defense has cruelly, disgustingly, horrifyingly, and all-around intolerably suggested that the death of these people alone could not have conceivably inflicted emotional distress on a large group of people that would be reasonably categorized as “severe.” The court finds this contention not only laughable, but also indicative that the defendant has apparently never met anyone who is from Appalachia or employed in the performing arts. Dolly Parton was not simply a country music icon. She was a role model. A philanthropist. A monumental figure who was instrumental in the economic and educational development of the region she called home. The loss of her presence will be felt for years to come. The death of Tim Curry occurring only two months before Halloween speaks for itself. Human beings were never meant to do the Time Warp with grief in their hearts. 

Lastly, the insistence by the defending Pale Rider that the plaintiffs could not have endured severe emotional distress blatantly ignores the occupation of said plaintiffs. These are law students. In the first month of the school year. A stiff breeze would cause them severe emotional distress. This justice experienced severe emotional distress just by dropping two-thirds of her Raising Cane’s order on the floor this weekend. 

With all elements satisfied, plaintiff’s prayer for relief is answered by equitable relief in the form of defendant spending the next 1000 years of their eternal life teaching children about the evils of deforestation through suggestively smoggy animated musical numbers and having the love of their life stolen away by Jolene. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

[1] See SuperValu, Inc. v. Johnson, 276 Va. 356, 370 (2008). (stating that “there are inherent problems in proving a claim alleging injury to the mind or emotions in the absence of accompanying physical injury.”)