Welcome to what will undoubtedly be the most read article I have posted in some time. To be fair, the title of the article that originally caught my eye read, “Male Stripper Loses Damages Claim Over Rear-Ending Injury, ” but I probably clicked on that link with the same tawdry imagination and giddy interest in the perverse as you did in order to wind up here. It just goes to show that a good headline can make all the difference. 

You’re welcome.

The subject of our note today was an Irish man who was involved in a rear end collision near the Dublin airport when he was 29 years old. He sued the driver of the vehicle that hit him, giving evidence “that he had been unable to find work for the past three-and-a-half years and had been unable to lift his baby or do anything strenuous around the house.”

However, it appears that he saved that strenuous activity for other locales. He might not have been able to lift that baby, but he was apparently still able to shake it.

You see, our hero turned zero failed to disclose to the court that during those same three-and-a-half years he had continued his strip-dancing career, apparently nakedly boogying though the pain. It seems the problem for his lawsuit was that this rear-ending injury was not a career ending injury. (Don’t you just love the phonetic rhythm of that sentence? I don’t know about you, but I find being easily amused a great joy)

Photographs and video presented in court as well as under cross-examination exposed his previously undisclosed dancing career, which he maintained under the stage name “Blade.” The court was informed that he was also featured as “Mr. September” in a calendar and had “partaken in strenuous dancing activities” while maintaining he had been unable to find work during the same period.

Judge Mary O’Malley Costello (now that certainly sounds Irish, doesn’t it?) ruled that the man had given “entirely misleading evidence to the court” which required the dismissal of his case “unless the court was of the view that to do so would lead to an injustice.” She also determined that he misled the court by claiming his injuries were a lot worse that it would appear they were. She indicated that he had “come to court and had been given every opportunity to deal with and clarify all matters and had chosen not to.”

He certainly doesn’t sound like the sharpest Blade in the drawer, if you ask me.

So, the lesson today, kids, is that you shouldn’t mislead the court when you are dancing through the pain, which must be noted has no similarity to dancing in the rain. We’ve also ascertained that a rear-ending injury is probably not the same thing as a rear end injury. They appear to be completely different things; which may be why the judge told him to metaphorically stick this case in his ear, rather than his rear. 

After all, we wouldn’t want to harm his career.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *