In this latest installment of InGen’s unfortunate prehistoric endeavors, we meet six teenagers who arrive at Jurassic World just prior to the 2015 incident with the Indominus Rex and begin to settle in at Camp Cretaceous before all hell breaks loose. In the first season, the campers survived multiple encounters with “Toro” the Carnotaurus sastrei as well as fan favorites like the enormous Mosasaurus maximus and the peaceful Parasaurolophus walkeri. While visiting Dr. Wu’s genetics lab, the group befriended a slightly-asymmetrical Ankylosaurus magniventris, whom they named Bumpy and later reunited with in the wilds of the park. While their Camp Cretaceous experience is cut short (not unlike every other Jurassic adventure we’ve witnessed so far), the teens find themselves with plenty of time to soak up the dino experience as they are accidentally left behind when the evacuation boats leave the island. Although the camp counselors are concerned for their charges, it is unclear how soon any potential rescue mission could be undertaken given the physical and political state of the island.
In the second season, the abandoned teens of Camp Cretaceous learn that their new prehistoric neighbors are not the only deadly creatures to roam Isla Nublar. Midway through the season, they encounter a deadly new enemy: eco-tourists.
Well, not actual eco-tourists. More like the “eco-tourists” we saw in Jurassic Park 3. In true Jurassic Park fashion, this couple fills the role of hunters who are only there to chase and shoot at the exotic beasts (and likely anyone that gets too much in their way). However, Mitch and Tiff are not in it for the money or fame like other armed antagonists in the franchise. They’re simply trying to assist the doomed creatures and “preserve their memory,” albeit in a manner that also furnishes Mitch’s “man cave” and lets Tiff release some of her repressed marital anger.
Armed with luxury yurts, assorted weapons, a black-market Jurassic World tablet without a signal, and the nauseating overuse of the term “babe,” the hunters see the campers as equal parts park guides and dino bait. They brought their own tracker, Hap, who breaks the mercenary-with-a-heart-of-gold mold but fails to actually track their unique prey. Although the couple ultimately refuses to transport the campers off the island unless Darius leads them to the “one-stop dino-hunting shop,” it is understandable why the campers trusted the couple’s original assurance of rescue without consideration or compensation.
The campers, like most non-lawyers, would assume that Mitch, Tiff, and Hap were bound to help the stranded adolescents after rescuing them from the C. nasicornis. In addition to the campers’ minority, there is the implicit assumption that these adult newcomers should offer to help. After all, they are there in a comfortable situation with their peacock soap displays and pre-pasted toothbrushes versus simply trying to survive like newly-Ramboesque Ben and the other campers. Morality aside, whether Mitch and Tiff had a legal obligation to use their resources to help the teens will turn on whether there was a duty to rescue.
Duty to Rescue
Jurisdiction is a large factor in determining whether a duty to rescue exists here. In an earlier post, the legal jurisdiction to determine InGen’s liability to the park guests and employees was discussed in favor of California’s jurisdiction despite InGen’s possible desire for Costa Rican law. Since Mitch and Tiff chartered their own ship to Isla Nublar despite the UN quarantine on the island and plan to convert and abscond with partial Jurassic World assets, the couple appears to be independent from Masrani Global (InGen’s successor and owner of the property). Without this corporate connection, we must trek into the murky, blood-drenched legal waters that surround this island 120 miles west of Costa Rica.
As other sources have noted, the 99-year lease of the island to California-based InGen is one factor contributing to a jurisdictional fog not unlike the eponymous cloud coverage of the island itself.[1] To further complicate matters, it appears that both U.S. and Costa Rican law have been applied to different activities on and around the island. While both nations have laws that prohibit shipping lanes and fly zones near the island, the U.S. has also controlled activities and access to the island via the Gene Guard Act of 1997 (revised in 2003).[2] The ambiguous jurisdiction of the island itself and the independent nature of the parties involved will require a more broad look at whether there is a duty to rescue owed to the campers.
Reasonable Duty to Rescue – Civil Law Jurisdictions
If Costa Rican law applies to Isla Nublar, there may be a general duty to rescue as is common in civil law countries, including most in Latin American. While not absolute, this duty would require civilians to intervene and rescue others so long as it is reasonable and does not endanger the rescuer. Under this duty, Mitch and Tiff would likely be held to owe a duty to rescue the campers since the couple had the means to transport the youths off the island and to safety without endangering their own lives. In fact, taking the campers off the island immediately after the C. nasicornis rescue would have saved at least four lives that were lost as part of Mitch and Tiff’s bloody search for the perfect accent piece.
If U.S. law applies, then there is no general duty to rescue even if it means leaving someone to die or suffer grave injury.[3] Unlike the required standard of care for affirmative actions, a general omission, such as the refusal to aid another who is in peril, does not need to be reasonable. Therefore, even though there is an extremely high risk that the minor campers face mortal danger while stranded on an island overrun by dinosaurs, Mitch and Tiff could legally go about their business without so much as a passing glance in the absence of a duty to rescue. However, a special relationship or statute could create such a duty. The Restatement of Torts, Second sets forth examples of special relationships that could trigger this duty. Rest.2d Torts, § 314A:
(1) A common carrier is under a duty to its passengers to take reasonable action
(a) to protect them against unreasonable risk of physical harm, and
(b) to give the first aid after it knows or has reason to know that they are ill or injured, and to care for them until they can be cared for by others.
(2) An innkeeper is under a similar duty to his guests.
(3) A possessor of land who holds it open to the public is under a similar duty to members of the public who enter in response to his invitation.
(4) One who is required by law to take or who voluntarily takes the custody of another under circumstances such as to deprive the other of his normal opportunities for protection is under a similar duty to the other.
Although Mitch and Tiff offer to rescue the campers using their boat, this gesture does not transform them into a common carrier and create a duty to rescue. Similarly, the fact that the couple welcome the campers into their little illegal settlement and seem to offer them access to at least one of the yurts does not qualify them as innkeepers or possessors of land, who owe a greater legal duty to guests. Therefore, the strongest argument for a duty under § 314A would be that there is a duty based on the custodial relationship they create with the teens.
Duty to Rescue – Custodial Relationship
While their initial interactions were pleasant as the couple invited the adolescents to roam about their settlement so they could partake in some food and refresh, all good things must come to an end. In this case, the shift to Mitch and Tiff forcefully taking custody over the three campers in their vicinity occurs when their true business on the island is revealed and the teens reject their pitch that taxidermy is the new immortality. In case there was any doubt of the campers’ volition in their trek to the watering hole, the couple is clearly angered when one of their captees escape. If the custodial role has been assumed and the individuals in custody have been deprived of their normal opportunities for protection, the analysis shifts to whether Mitch and Tiff satisfied their duty of care by protecting the campers in their custody against unreasonable risk of physical harm.
Mitch and Tiff arguably breached their duty to protect Darius, Sammy, and Yasmina the moment they decided to delay their departure from the island and instead head to the dinosaur watering hole, where they hoped to encounter carnivores and large herbivores. While taking unarmed minors to rendezvous with large, unrestrained prehistoric reptiles seems to clearly qualify as an unreasonable risk of physical harm, we need not deal in hypothetical attacks because the group has a run-in with the Tyrannosaurus rex prior to reaching their destination. Although the risk of encountering the mighty queen of the dinosaurs seems high considering the frequency of T. rex encounters throughout the franchise, this was no chance encounter. Darius was actually leading his captors directly to this deadly nest in hopes of escape. This raises the question as to whether Darius and Sammy were still owed protection from their custodians as they sought out this unreasonable risk of physical harm. To further complicate matters, Darius and Sammy manage to steal the couple’s guns and run off to hide just prior to the actual attack.
Although Mitch and Tiff were temporarily parted from their hunting rifles and without physical custody of the campers, it seems like they should still be viewed as custodians at the time of the attack. Although Darius misled the couple to Main Street instead of the watering hole, he did so under the duress of their rescue ultimatum and the unspoken threat of their guns. As such, Darius was only acting through what channels he had available for his best chance at survival and not the “normal opportunities for protection” that he would have been afforded but for his being held against his will. Assuming that Mitch and Tiff remained the custodians from the time of their attempted escape through the T. rex attack, there are several actions and indicators that the couple were not providing the required protection.
First, in response to Tiff’s exasperation when Darius and Sammy run off with their guns, Mitch comments that it may be easier for the couple if the teens are alive. Although it is chilling to hear that Tiff is more indifferent to their deaths, one cannot ignore the implication here that living teens could still function as bait for carnivorous prey or even a distraction for others prey. The focus here is clearly on the benefit to the couple, not the long-term protection of the campers themselves.
Second, Tiff attempts to use her electrical baton to shock one of the hiding campers, only to accidentally electrocute a life-size cutout of the celebrity camper, Brooklyn. This attempt to inflict physical harm would directly violate the duty to protect the intended individual. Immediately after this failed attack, Tiff threatens the campers to dissuade them from trying to run again, thus attempting to reestablish physical custody over them.
Finally, when the T. rex arrives and coincidentally helps to re-arm the dastardly hunters, the couple chooses to abandon Darius and Sammy to the beast while they make their exit, guided by the now-connected tablet. Once more, the campers are forced to try and save themselves with the scarce opportunities available as they are finally freed from the couple’s custody. It is unclear why the couple did not take advantage of the distraction created by the campers to take out the T. rex now that they were armed, except perhaps to allow the beast to eliminate the Darius and Sammy. In fact, when they meet again, Tiff expressly states that she had hoped the fierce predator would have eliminated Darius.
Duty to Rescue – Continued Undertaking
The duty to rescue can also be created through action, such as a voluntary undertaking to aid or protect another. Rest. 2d Torts, § 324:
One who, being under no duty to do so, takes charge of another who is helpless adequately to aid or protect himself is subject to liability to the other for any bodily harm caused to him by
(a) the failure of the actor to exercise reasonable care to secure the safety of the other while within the actor’s charge, or
(b) the actor’s discontinuing his aid or protection, if by so doing he leaves the other in a worse position than when the actor took charge of him.
Mitch and Tiff had no special relationship with any of the campers prior to taking custody of Darius, Sammy, and Yasmina. Therefore, when the couple and Hap rescued the five campers from the C. nasicornis, they took charge of others who were helpless without having a legal duty to do so. As a result, the three adults were obligated to “exercise reasonable care to secure the safety” of the campers they rescued and, should they discontinue their aid or protection, they could not leave the rescuees in a worse position. While Mitch and Tiff might have argued that their aid and protection was limited to the discrete rescue from that one dinosaur, a court would have likely found that their statements following the encounter suggest that the rescue included but was not limited to that event. In fact, when Darius first asks the rescuers who they are, Tiff responds “after all that, maybe you should call us your salvation.” Given the context of their situation, salvation for the campers would not necessarily be surviving one more dinosaur attack but rather an escape from the island of dinosaurs. Additionally, shortly after they arrive at the adults’ settlement, Mitch tells the campers that once their boat returns, they would “get (them) back to the mainland.” This appears to extend their commitment to protecting and ultimately rescuing the campers, even if the couple knew that they could easily depart at any time. In the meantime, the couple invites the campers to stay in their settlement, enjoying their food and amenities rather than returning to their own tree-based shelter with impenetrable canned peaches.
In contrast to Mitch and Tiff’s deceptions and promises, their hired guide and muscle, Hap, actually commits to his rescuer duties, even pushing the couple to protect the campers to the detriment of their expedition. This is why Hap does everything in his power to protect the campers around him from any bodily harm. Hap going beyond reasonable care to give the utmost care provides a foil for the abysmal protective care given by Mitch and Tiff.
As mentioned before, when their secret is revealed, the couple terminates their prior plan to assist in favor of using passage on their vessel as an incentive. Both this shift in commitment and their initial delay in helping the campers depart from the island can constructively be seen as discontinuing their aid or protection. The formal abandonment of any effort to aid the campers could also be when the couple leaves Brooklyn and Kenji to their own devices after returning to camp for their weapons, or when they make no effort to save Darius and Sammy from the T. rex, or any of the times they menacingly brandish their weapons and threaten the teenagers.
To find Mitch and Tiff liable for failing to satisfy their duty to rescue, the campers would need to demonstrate that they suffered any bodily harm and that they are now in a worse position than if no aid had been rendered. Since none of the campers appeared to be injured while within the couple’s charge, despite the couple exercising less than reasonable care, they would need to satisfy Rest. 2d Torts, § 324(b) by showing that they are in a worse position than when they met Mitch and Tiff. It is unclear what potential rescue opportunities the campers might have missed due to their distraction with Mitch and Tiff or if being abandoned at the dock while Tiff sailed off on the boat put them in a dangerous situation. However, there is one product of this abandoned rescue that will likely pose trouble next season. While the campers attempted to save Darius and Sammy from the couple, Kenji accidentally triggered the release of the specimen in room E750. Although Kenji was acting in character pushing the button like a starving Skinner pigeon in that scenario, he likely would not have acted that way if the campers had stumbled into the room in a different, less time-sensitive situation. Next season, the campers could be in a far worse position than facing down a C. nasicornis should this new, ominous creature cross their path.
[1] Franklin Webb, Mount Sibo: Life at the Edge of Chaos, DINOSAUR PROTECTION GROUP (February 4), http://www.dinosaurprotectiongroup.com/volcano.html.
[2] Zia Rodriguez, What Killed the Gene Guard Act?, DINOSAUR PROTECTION GROUP (February 23), http://www.dinosaurprotectiongroup.com/what-killed-the-gene-guard-act.html.
[3] People v. Oliver, 210 Cal. App. 3d 138, 147 (1989).
