In the case of Woods-Leber v. Hyatt Hotels of Puerto Rico, a rabid mongoose leaps out of the woods and bites a poolside sunbather. The sunbather, being a properly litigious American, sues the hotel owning the pool, claiming it should have known of an infestation of mongooses, some of which might be rabid. Of course, this suit is ridiculous and the plaintiff lost, but the appeal produced the following gem of a footnote, by Judge Selya:

The plural of ‘mongoose’ is a matter of some debate in lexicographic circles. See, e.g., Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 767 (1989) (‘mongoose . . . n, pl mongooses also mongeese . . . .’). Having noted the debate, however, we choose not to enter it. Thus, while we use the term ‘mongooses’ throughout, we express no opinion on which plural noun is linguistically preferable.

Woods-Leber v. Hyatt Hotels of Puerto Rico, 124 F.3d 47, 49 n.1 (1st Cir. 1997).

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 26th, 2006 at 12:36 pm and is filed under Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.