I think it’s just that a kangaroo jumps high, so a kangaroo on a pogo stick jumps much higher than a human on a pogo stick, so he hit the ceiling really hard and injured his head. I don’t know why he (the injured kangaroo) didn’t think of that. He is the plaintiff, so this is a civil case, not a criminal case. So it’s not attempted murder. Maybe she is the manufacturer of the pogo sticks.
“I don’t know why he (the injured kangaroo) didn’t think of that. ”
Because he didn’t know enough about Pogo sticks. The defendant was (allegedly) negligent in not warning him. Had she not known he was a kangaroo it would have a reasonable omission but if the plaintiff’s can show she was aware he was a kangaroo her case is weakened
Anyway… something about a kangaroo court but I’m not sure what.
And why would a kangaroo on a pogo stick bounce any higher than normal, plus the height of the compressed spring? Its feet would leave the footrests before the spring could add any momentum.
I wonder if the Kanga in the dock is supposed the mother of the Roo plaintiff. Or maybe it is husband and wife. Certainly seems like the plaintiff doesn’t have a pouch in the way the defined “she” does, but that may just be the angulation of the depiction.
Probably woozy is right about “kangaroo court” – one can imagine the artist thinking of the phrase and wondering what a real case in a kangaroo court would be about. Jumping, obviously.
In Kangaroo court, the defendant is guilty of the crime accused, regardless of the evidence. But the judge is not a kangaroo, and does not want his courtroom turned into a kangaroo court. (Although it’s weird that there is no table for the defense, nor a defense attorney.)
Let’s not jump to conclusions here.
Heck, that’s about the only exercise I get!
Treesong — you’re making the argument that the defense should make. The plaintiff’s lawyer should be making the case that jumping+jumping = 2 x jumping; 1 x jumping is safe indoors and 2 x jumping is not safe indoors; and the seller should have known that, while the buyer had no way of knowing it.
I mean, I could see the case going either way, depending which arguments the jury finds more persuasive. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see it as an impossible case.
ianosmond: I see it as an impossible case because kangaroos can’t sue each other.
@Winter Wallaby: “I see it as an impossible case because kangaroos can’t sue each other.”
Why not? Why, for a marsupial, “sue” is its middle name! (More or less.)
In a kangaroo court, the plaintiff is blind.
(The bandage confused me; I spent too much time down the blind alley of, well, if the one has bandages covering its eyes, maybe it couldn’t see that the other was a kangaroo, so how is the lawyer trying to establish that despite that, he knew the other was a kangaroo…)
Comics I Don't Understand 
I think it’s just that a kangaroo jumps high, so a kangaroo on a pogo stick jumps much higher than a human on a pogo stick, so he hit the ceiling really hard and injured his head. I don’t know why he (the injured kangaroo) didn’t think of that. He is the plaintiff, so this is a civil case, not a criminal case. So it’s not attempted murder. Maybe she is the manufacturer of the pogo sticks.
“I don’t know why he (the injured kangaroo) didn’t think of that. ”
Because he didn’t know enough about Pogo sticks. The defendant was (allegedly) negligent in not warning him. Had she not known he was a kangaroo it would have a reasonable omission but if the plaintiff’s can show she was aware he was a kangaroo her case is weakened
Anyway… something about a kangaroo court but I’m not sure what.
And why would a kangaroo on a pogo stick bounce any higher than normal, plus the height of the compressed spring? Its feet would leave the footrests before the spring could add any momentum.
I wonder if the Kanga in the dock is supposed the mother of the Roo plaintiff. Or maybe it is husband and wife. Certainly seems like the plaintiff doesn’t have a pouch in the way the defined “she” does, but that may just be the angulation of the depiction.
Probably woozy is right about “kangaroo court” – one can imagine the artist thinking of the phrase and wondering what a real case in a kangaroo court would be about. Jumping, obviously.
In Kangaroo court, the defendant is guilty of the crime accused, regardless of the evidence. But the judge is not a kangaroo, and does not want his courtroom turned into a kangaroo court. (Although it’s weird that there is no table for the defense, nor a defense attorney.)
Let’s not jump to conclusions here.
Heck, that’s about the only exercise I get!
Treesong — you’re making the argument that the defense should make. The plaintiff’s lawyer should be making the case that jumping+jumping = 2 x jumping; 1 x jumping is safe indoors and 2 x jumping is not safe indoors; and the seller should have known that, while the buyer had no way of knowing it.
I mean, I could see the case going either way, depending which arguments the jury finds more persuasive. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see it as an impossible case.
ianosmond: I see it as an impossible case because kangaroos can’t sue each other.
@Winter Wallaby: “I see it as an impossible case because kangaroos can’t sue each other.”
Why not? Why, for a marsupial, “sue” is its middle name! (More or less.)
In a kangaroo court, the plaintiff is blind.
(The bandage confused me; I spent too much time down the blind alley of, well, if the one has bandages covering its eyes, maybe it couldn’t see that the other was a kangaroo, so how is the lawyer trying to establish that despite that, he knew the other was a kangaroo…)
Best ever kangaroo courtroom cartoon: https://condenaststore.com/featured/perhaps-this-will-refresh-your-memory-james-thurber.html