Matters for judgment - a parenting dilemma

The plaintiff in this case, a nine year old boy, was the owner of an electronic tablet device. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, a two year old, was wholly responsible for the destruction of said tablet through submersion in water, to wit: it being thrown into the bath. He is seeking compensation to the value of a new tablet, ideally with some cool games on it, and an opportunity to smack the defendant in the head. The defendant, through his legal guardians, acknowledges having thrown the device into the bath but pleads mental incompetence due to age. His assertion is that, for him, an object adjacent to a bath can be reasonably construed as a bath toy and, therefore, should be hoiked in that general direction. 

Expert testimony was heard by the court to the effect that the defendant has no idea what he's doing but tends to grin while he's doing it - evidence of mental incompetence. The plaintiff has asserted that the grin is evidence that he knows exactly what he (the defendant) is doing and how much he enjoys doing it and he, therefore, should be held fully accountable for his actions; "held accountable" in this case meaning subjected to various forms of corporal punishment.

In their judgment, the court decreed that the defendant was indeed negligent in having immersed said tablet but that the plaintiff was also at fault because he shouldn't have had the bloody thing in the bathroom to start with. Therefore, contributory negligence was assessed at 50% and the plaintiff is required to cough up $125 of his saved pocket money to buy a new one with the defendant's legal guardians paying the difference.

In his appeal, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant was 100% liable for the loss because he regularly took the tablet into the bathroom to listen to cool music while he bathed and that the defendant shouldn't have been in the bathroom when he was there in the first place. He argues that the judgment is manifestly unjust in that it leaves him without funds to cover the basic necessities of his life, such as a copy of the Lego movie.

The dilemma for the court is whether to imprison the plaintiff for backchat or admit the quality of his appeal as representing advanced logical thinking for a nine year old, presaging a bright future in the legal profession.

My learned friends?

Note:

The picture shows Edward 'Gough' Whitlam - the only Australian prime minister ever to have been sacked and Sir John Kerr (left) the governor-general who sacked him. The dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975 remains a hot topic of Australian legal and political debate. Sir John Kerr's book on the subject was called "Matters for Judgement".