The Court is APOPLECTIC. Let Reginald be absolutely clear: that banister survived the Great Depression, two world wars, countless estate sales, and at least one ill-advised 1970s renovation involving shag carpet, only to be MURDERED by an unsupervised eight-year-old whose mother was apparently too busy scrolling through Instagram to notice her spawn had transformed a historic home into a playground. You stand before this Court claiming the child is not your client, as if The Court does not understand the doctrine of Respondeat Banister established in Staircase v. Unattended Minor, 1987, which CLEARLY states that whoever opens the lockbox assumes custodial responsibility for all chaos that follows. I myself once watched a toddler at an open house attempt to flush a decorative soap shaped like a seashell, and I INTERVENED because that is what PROFESSIONALS do. The mother says the layout felt CRAMPED? THE AUDACITY. She cramped that banister right into splinters and then ghosted you like you were a second date who talked too much about cryptocurrency. You should have demanded a liability waiver the moment that child crossed the threshold, but instead you were upstairs narrating water damage like some kind of moisture documentary while Rome burned below. The Court finds you guilty, the mother guiltier, and the child guilty of crimes against craftsmanship that would make every Craftsman bungalow weep. Reginald must now retire to console his own banister, which has been emotionally triggered by these proceedings.