Grumah wrote:

With $20 million from an alleged statutory rape

Lazansky, Judge wrote:

Should a consenting female under the age of eighteen have a cause of [Tort] action if she has full understanding of the nature of her act? [...] Surely public policy -to serve which the statute was adopted- will not be vindicated by recompensing her for willing participation in that against which the law sought to protect her. The very object of the statute will be frustrated if by material return for her fall "we should unwarily put it in the power of the female sex to become seducers in thier turn" (Smith v Richards, 29 Conn. 232.) Instead of incapacity to consent being a shield to save, it might be a sword to desecrate. The court is of the opinion that a female under the age of eighteen has no cause of [tort] action against a male with whom she willingly consorts