Meanwhile, if any of you wonder why I follow law, its because occassionally something like this case pops up:
Fisher v. Lowe, 333 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. App. 1983), which reads, in its entirety:
We thought that we would never see
A suit to compensate a tree.
A suit whose claim in tort is prest
Upon a mangled tree's behest;
A tree whose battered trunk was prest
Against a Chevy's crumpled crest;
A tree that faces each new day
With bark and limb in disarray;
A tree that may forever bear
A lasting need for tender care.
Flora lovers though we three,
We must uphold the court's decree.
Now, wasn't that worth reading?