Home Blog

Does A Faceless Girl Face Tort Liability?

In Season 8, Episode 5 of Game of Thrones, Arya Stark finds herself trapped in King’s Landing during Daenerys’s attack, and as Arya flees the destruction, she encounters a terrified group of civilians. Arya persuades a mother and her daughter to go with her, insisting that they will die otherwise. Unfortunately, shortly after leaving the shelter, the mother and daughter were killed.

Assuming that the mother and daughter have surviving relatives who could sue Arya, is Arya liable for the tort of wrongful death?

Other than those in law enforcement or who are emergency responders, we regular citizens have no legal duty to help anyone in distress, as callous as that may sound. And once upon a time, it used to be that if a person attempted a rescue, the rescuer could have faced civil liability if the rescue failed and the rescuee wound up injured or otherwise worse off. Obviously, this risk of liability did not inspire a great deal of heroism.

To address this problem, all fifty states now have some kind of “Good Samaritan Law” that protects rescuers from civil liability. In California, for example, the Good Samaritan law is Health and Safety Code section 1799.102(b): “[N]o person who . . . renders emergency . . . assistance at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission other than an act or omission constituting gross negligence.” This would sound pretty good to Arya, given that a dragon attack (!!!) qualifies as an emergency and her evacuation attempt would qualify as nonmedical emergency assistance.

Unfortunately, Arya may have a problem. The California Good Samaritan statute has an exception for a rescue attempt that is so foolhardy and reckless that it amounts to “gross negligence,” which is usually defined as a “want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.” City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal. 4th 747, 754 (2007) (quotes omitted). To convince a court that Arya should not receive the benefit of the Good Samaritan law, the plaintiffs might argue that luring the mother and daughter from their hiding place and out into the open was grossly negligent.

And they might have a point. If any of the other people that were hiding with the mother and daughter survived, those survivors could testify that they vigorously disagreed with Arya’s advice to run. They obviously believed that leaving their shelter seemed to them like “an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.”

However, Arya could argue that given how thoroughly doomed King’s Landing was in the face of a dragon attack, remaining in their shelter offered less hope than the admittedly very slim chance of escape. Arya could argue that her effort, even if it didn’t succeed, is exactly the kind of heroism that Good Samaritan laws protect. Ultimately, A Girl is likely a Good Samaritan—and is justified in freely riding off on a random white horse while facing no tort liability.

What Happens to Mr. Freeze’s Money in Batman Beyond?

In the not too distant future, Bruce Wayne has given up the cape and cowl and gone into isolation. His company is taken over by corporate industrialists and Gotham City has changed into a cyber aged city complete with flying cars and still wracked with crime. With no Batman to fear and cower from gangs like the Jokers run rampant over the lower, less affluent levels of Gotham and teenager Terry McGinnis tries to get through life with a split family and all the usual high school problems. When his dad is murdered because of something he learns at his job for Wayne Powers Terry seeks out the reclusive Bruce Wayne for help from Batman and ends up taking up the mantle of the Caped Crusader (though without the Cape). After starting out by turning the CEO of Wayne/Powers, Derek Powers into a radioactive supervillain (as opposed to a corporate shark regular villain), fighting an assassin made of ink, and going up against a bullied teen who gains control of a giant construction robot, Terry meets his first of the old Batman’s rogues’ gallery.

Season 1 Episode 5 finds Batman up against a resurrected Mr. Freeze. After his last fight with Bruce’s Batman in Batman and Mr. Freeze: Sub Zero he’s still alive, or at least his head is. Powers/Blight is trying to cure himself of his radiation poisoning so he is looking into cloning himself a new body. Dr. Stephanie Lake, lead scientist on the project, suggests they test it on Mr. Freeze since his genetic condition is similar to Blight’s. In his new clone body Mr. Freeze sets out to redeem his past misdeeds by starting the Norah Freeze foundation in memory of his late wife. He does this with money that he says was from his “legitimate holdings” and put in a blind trust before he went to prison. But would he have had any money that could have been put away before he went to prison, or would the government have seized it upon his conviction using the Criminal Forfeiture Laws?

The answer turns out to be complicated. At its base the Criminal Forfeiture law is designed to make sure that people don’t profit from criminal activity (Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.2). If you rob a bank and they convict you of robbing a bank you obviously don’t get to keep the money you stole. You also don’t get to keep the Ferrari you bought with the money you stole from the bank. That all makes sense and seems fair, however on the ground though things are rarely that clear cut and criminal forfeiture has drawn significant criticism. I won’t go into too much detail, but google ‘Criminal Forfeiture Controversy’ and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Suffice to say, it’s frequently used to seize legitimate assets of people who are on the low end of criminal activity. For a real world example (though with some details tweaked for the sake of privacy), a person is drawing a pension from being disabled and is dabbling with the low end of the drug trade. They are caught, arrested, and convicted but keep no transaction records. How do you sort out what money was from the disability and what was from the drug trade. Was used from one for the other? You get the idea. Unfortunately, with the all consuming grind of the justice system and the drive of judicial efficiency, the system is not always prepared to look into the little details and will routinely seize what prosecutors ask for without much scrutiny.

Now let’s look at Mr. Freeze’s situation, which is likely not as complicated as the last example. It would have probably looked something like this: Mr. Freeze gets charged with his various acts of villainy, goes to trial or pleads guilty and the Government has to show, or Freeze has to admit, that whatever they want to seize is proceeds of his criminal activity. If they don’t agree, then there is a seperate trial where the Government would need to show by a preponderance of the evidence (51% more likely than not, as opposed to the guilt phase of a trial where they have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt) that whatever money they seek to seize is the fruit of his criminal exploits (which they’ve already shown at the guilt phase of the proceedings that happen prior to the forfeiture proceedings). While it’s possible that the Government would have agreed that some of Freeze’s money was legitimate and unrelated to his criminal activity it seems unlikely for two reasons. First, Governments are always happy to take money, second (and more important/less snarky) Freeze doesn’t have any legitimate holdings. If you look back at Dr. Victor Freeze’s first appearance in Batman TAS (Season 1 episode 3, Heart of Ice for those keeping score) we see that Dr. Freeze was broke and embezzling from Gothcorp to fund his research on cryogenics, so he can save his wife’s life. This is what leads to him being fired by his boss (voiced by Mark Hamill oddly enough but I’ll leave the theories that Joker created Mr. Freeze to you) and flung into the cryogenic sciency stuff where he becomes Mr. Freeze (apparently becoming a supervillain gets your doctorate revoked).

So, if Mr. Freeze doesn’t have any legitimate holdings, what if he put one over on the prosecutors in his original case(s), what happens then? The short answer is that it’s so complicated the prosecutors in Neo-Gothem would be wise to just let him donate the money and start the charity with an agreement that he has no direct control over the charity’s operations. If, however, the Neo-Gotham Prosecutor’s Office want to do something about Freeze’s money, if they want to wade into that quagmire, what can they do? They can’t do a ton with the criminal forfeiture statutes because under that law any action that the Government takes has to be taken at the time of the sentencing and since we’re several decades too late for that they are out of luck with that particular statutory scheme. However, they have two more tools that they can look into. One is civil forfeiture which the government can use to start the case City of Gotham City vs. Money that Mr. Freeze Stole, where the money itself is a defendant and if Mr. Freeze wants to do something about it he has to ask the Court to let him intervene. That would let the prosecutors attempt to take control over the funds by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the money was connected to criminal activity. That might be a somewhat difficult case for them to make based on what records existed from the time the trust was created back in the TAS era, but their burden is still only more likely than not so it’s possible. The Government’s other option is to try to seize under a new criminal case on the theory that Mr. Freeze has been actively engaged in a criminal cover up to conceal the proceeds of his criminal activity, more commonly known as fraud. They could dig into his tax returns and see if there’s anything there, but since he’s a head in a jar living off the grid who knows what lies down that road. Bottom line though, if the Government wants your money and you’re a criminal, it is very likely that they get your money. Take what lessons you will from that. 

Mock Stormtrooper Body Armor Depositions

Stormtrooper Body Armor has an express warranty to protect against blaster energy, heat energy, cold energy, kinetic, piercing, slashing, and poison. The following mock depositions were recorded for our WonderCon mock trial, where Stormtroopers sued for injuries sustained from body armor that failed to protect against the primate projectile weapons of Ewoks at the Battle of Endor. Do they have a case? Or will Stormtroopers continue to get the short end of the stick?

Mock Deposition of TK-812, Stormtrooper Legion Union, on behalf of its injured members, Stormtrooper Nos. TK-1977, plaintiff, v. Ishiro Military Equipment, Inc., a Galactic Corporation, defendant; The Galactic Empire, intervenor.

Mock Deposition of Major Willis R. Hausen, Stormtrooper Legion Union, on behalf of its injured members, Stormtrooper Nos. TK-1977, plaintiff, v. Ishiro Military Equipment, Inc., a Galactic Corporation, defendant; The Galactic Empire, intervenor.

Ahsoka’s Perilous Plummet into Products Liability Law

One of the most widely anticipated events at the recent Star Wars Celebration in Chicago was a look at the long-awaited final season of Star Wars: The Clone Wars.

In a preview clip shown at the Clone Wars panel, we saw Ahsoka in mortal danger as her speeder bike unexpectedly malfunctioned, plunging Ahsoka down a giant shaft that led to Coruscant’s lower levels. Ahsoka survived the incident thanks to her resourcefulness and ex-Jedi agility. But assuming that Ahsoka suffered some compensable injury, could Ahsoka call upon the power of products liability to recover for her speeder mishap?

The law of products liability allows consumers who are injured by defective products, such as cars and speeder bikes, to sue manufacturers and retailers to recover compensatory damages. Products liability law is pro-consumer in the sense that it operates under a strict liability standard, which means that the plaintiff does not have to prove any bad intent on the defendant’s part. Rather, the injured consumer must prove only that the defendant’s conduct was responsible for the product’s malfunction that caused the plaintiff’s injury.

But despite this litigation leg-up, Ahsoka’s products liability case is not out of the Forest Moon of Endor just yet. In order to advise Ahsoka on her best course of action, we would need to know more about what caused the sparking console and loss of control we saw in the Clone Wars Season 7 clip.

If an idiosyncratic failure of her speeder bike caused the accident, then Ahsoka would have to pursue damages for a manufacturing defect. This approach is for products that are damaged by someone along the supply chain in a manner that results in the product’s malfunction during its normal use by the consumer. Ahsoka would face an initial burden to establish that the manufacturer or dealership somehow damaged the speeder bike’s repulsorlifts. Then, the defendant(s) could avoid liability by proving that Ahsoka’s accident resulted from her misuse of the speeder bike, but more on that in a moment.

On the other hand, what if Coruscant commuters regularly used speeder bikes to descend to Coruscant’s lower levels, but this particular make or model of speeder bike had a design flaw that made it unsafe for that foreseeable use? In that case, Ahsoka is looking at a design defect lawsuit. This type of products liability case involves vehicles that are “built in accordance with . . . intended specifications, but the [vehicle’s] design itself is inherently defective.” McCabe v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 100 Cal. App. 4th 1111, 1120 (2002). California courts have adopted two alternative methods of establishing this kind of design defect liability. See Barker v. Lull Eng’g Co., 20 Cal. 3d 413, 432 (1978) (describing the consumer expectation test and the risk-benefit test).

First, Ahsoka may try to establish strict liability for a design defect under the “consumer expectation test.” This test is appropriate if the product is something about which an ordinary consumer would have safety expectations. Given that another speeder bike rider is briefly visible in the Celebration clip, Coruscant drivers generally are comfortable riding down a seemingly bottomless shaft on a speeder. Ahsoka would have to prove that her speeder model’s repulsorlift system was not designed to be powerful enough to accommodate her gravity-defying maneuver, even though consumers in a galaxy far, far away would expect it to be.

Second, a court may analyze Ahsoka’s case under the “risk-benefit test.” This test permits the product’s designer to avoid liability where, for example, the inherently dangerous design poses only a small risk of injury and the feasibility and cost of alternative designs are prohibitive. But even under this risk-benefit balancing, the risk of free-falling down a giant shaft seems great enough that the manufacturer should be held strictly liable for any design flaws that caused Ahsoka’s accident.

As referenced previously, the manufacturer may, in any event, avoid strict liability if it established that Ahsoka’s accident was caused by her misuse of the speeder, in which case Ahsoka’s injuries would be her own fault. Specifically, the manufacturer may argue that charging over a dizzying precipice is not one of the ordinary and foreseeable uses of speeder bikes, which evidently include hauling starship salvage on Jakku or, perhaps less frequently, hunting your mother’s abductors across Tatooine.

Capable of high-speed frictionless travel and with no obvious rider safety features, speeder bikes in the Star Wars universe seem designed for just one purpose: exposing riders to enormous risks of injury and death, particularly when ridden in proximity to old-growth redwoods. But even so, Ahsoka seems like she has a strong case for strict products liability after the harrowing events shown in the Celebration clip. In addition to her two shiny new lightsabers and her own division of clone troopers, perhaps the real takeaway at Celebration was the set-up for Ahsoka’s heroic consumer rights class action legal victory over unscrupulous speeder bike manufacturers.

Avengers Endgame Podcast!

The last 11 years have been a delight for anyone who grew up reading comic books. Jessica and I sat down to share our review of Avengers Endgame, with legal analysis and thoughts on the epic conclusion to the Infinity Gauntlet Saga.  

Dying Declarations in Daredevil

Daredevil season 3 incorporates many themes from the seminal “Born Again” storyline. The series also has wonderful original elements showing the long range planning of the Kingpin.

The final two episodes center on actions from FBI Agent Ray Nadeem, who was blackmailed by Wilson Fisk. Nadeem had testified before a grand jury about the Kingpin’s blackmailing of FBI Agents into protecting the crime lord, only to have the grand jury also be compromised. Nadeem returned home, waiting to be executed by Wilson Fisk’s operatives. Before being shot by Bullseye, Nadeem recorded a “confession” on his phone to serve as a “dying declaration.” Would that sort of confession be admissible?

Yes, but not for the reason Nadeem thought it would be.

Nadeem’s video confession included his admission that he was guilty of a number of criminal acts, that Fisk coerced Nadeem, and a list of other agents that were also operatives of Fisk, including the agent in charge. Nadeem further admitted to driving Bullseye dressed as Daredevil, who later killed Father Paul Lantom. Nadeem admitted he was an accessory to that murder.

A “dying declaration” is an out of court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted which are not excluded by the hearsay rule. The Federal Rules of Evidence reference the exception as a “Statement Under the Belief of Imminent Death.” The text of the Rule states:

In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil case, a statement that the declarant, while believing the declarant’s death to be imminent, made about its cause or circumstances.

USCS Fed Rules Evid R 804(b)(2).

Nadeem’s statement arguably is NOT a dying declaration under the Federal Rules of Evidence, because the statement is not directly related to his cause of death. There is also an argument that his death was not imminent, because he had not yet confronted Bullseye. That does not mean the confession could come in other ways.

Considering New York law, which does not have an Evidence code, but instead uses common law, has different elements to consider in a state prosecution of Kingpin. The key issue issues are the state of mind of the declarant, requiring them to be “in extremis, but must also have spoken under a sense of impending death, with no hope of recovery.” People v. Nieves, 67 N.Y.2d 125, 132-33 (1986), citing People v. Ludkowitz, 266 N.Y. 233, 238-39 (1935). Moreover, there must be a “’a settled hopeless expectation…that death is near at hand.” Ludkowitz, at *238-39, citing Shepard v United States, 290 U.S. 96, 100. This means that the declarant believing death is possible, or probable, is not sufficient to be a dying declaration. Id.

Was Nadeem’s video made with a sense of impending death with no hope of recovery? The argument for such a belief is the Kingpin’s high body count with anyone who dared cross him. Toss in dirty FBI Agents acting as a private hit squad, his hopelessness is understandable. However, Courts will not admit a dying declaration if the declaration is “giving expression to suspicion or conjecture, and not to known facts.” Shepard, at *101-102. Nadeem’s belief about Kingpin sending someone to kill Nadeem was conjecture at best, because he did not have actual knowledge of someone on their way to kill him, but only a suspicion. Moreover, Nadeem had armed himself and was prepared to fight, showing he had not given up hope of surviving.

There is a large issue that a dying declaration alone is not enough to convict someone of first-degree murder without corroborating evidence. Ludkowitz, at *240-241. While Nadeem’s statement is damning of others, there would need to be evidence to support such charges.

It is highly unlikely under both Federal and New York law that Nadeem’s statement meets the requirements as a dying declaration. However, there are other options.

Navigating the Rules of Evidence

Prosecutors could offer Nadeem’s confession against the Kingpin and other FBI Agents as “An Opposing Party’s Statement,” because the recording could be offered against Nadeem as a criminal defendant and in his participation of Kingpin’s criminal conspiracy and Nadeem is “unavailable” to testify in court. USCS Fed Rules Evid R 801(d)(2)(E). While such a statement does not establish a conspiracy, the statement would not be excluded by the hearsay rule. Another option is to offer the confession as a Statement Against Interest, which require the following requirements to be met:

(A) A reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and

(B) Is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.

USCS Fed Rules Evid R 804(b)(3)(A) and (B)

No person, let alone a FBI Agent, would admit to be an accessory to murder. Such an admission would subject Nadeem to criminal prosecution. This admission should meet the first requirements of the rule, because it exposed Nadeem to criminal liability. The second element could be met because there is corroborating evidence: Nadeem’s body with a fatal bullet wound to the head that was not suicide. Ballistics would show the point of entry and distance traveled was not indicative of a self-inflicted wound. These facts could be offered to show Nadeem was murdered. While not on its face proof of a conspiracy, evidence to use in prosecuting those named in the video.

Should Batman have taken the rap for Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight?

Should Batman have taken the rap for Harvey Dent?

In The Dark Knight we find our brooding hero face to face (no pun intended) with the Joker, who has decided that he’ll stand for chaos where the Bat stands for order. The Joker rains chaos on the city with explosions and car chases and various murders, so Batman teams up with Bruce Wayne’s friend and newly elected District Attorney Harvey Dent to stop him. Eventually, Joker kidnaps Dent and his girlfriend Rachel (who Bruce/Batman is/are also in love with) and hides them in two buildings across town from each other, both wired to explode. The Clown Prince of Crime gives Batman the choice of who to save, Harvey or Rachel. Batman (who in the Christopher Nolan trilogy is really not the world’s greatest detective) tries to save Rachel, only to realize that the Joker has executed a dastardly trick on him and lied to him about which prisoner is where so Batman ends up being slightly too late to totally save Dent whose face is scared in the explosion and Rachel dies. Bruce becomes mopey and Harvey goes crazy as a result. Dent, now Two-Face, goes on a murder spree and kills a couple of mobsters and kidnaps Commissioner Gordon’s family before being brought down by Batman and Gordon. Batman then laments that by turning Dent into Two-Face he won because if the city ever finds out that Dent was a murderer the hope he inspired will be lost and the criminal he put away as DA will be released. So Batman decides that he’ll take the blame for Two-Face’s murders and have Gordon declare him an outlaw. When faced with the facts of the movie and the law (pun intended that time), does Bat’s decision make sense?

In true lawyer fashion the answer is, it depends. It depends largely on what Batman’s goal was be for taking the blame for Two-Face’s murders. If his aim is to help his friend Harvey Dent avoid a messy public downfall then it might make sense for Batman to publicly take the blame, or at least try to. That way he can be the fall guy for Harvey and hopefully keep him from most of the consequences he might face if he’s ever cured of his Two-Face persona (though that cure never does seem to stick): like disbarment, losing his office, and going to prison. Having Batman as a scapegoat might help frame the public narrative in Harvey’s favor. This really only makes sense if Harvey died at the end of the movie, which is unclear. If Dent is alive then they’re going to have to come up with some very convincing reason why he’s no longer DA (because I’ve seen some bad DA’s in my career but that’s jumping the shark without your Bat-Shark-Repellent). The other major problem with Batman and Gordon crafting this narrative is that they ultimately have to contend with the public understanding of Batman that already exists. At this point Batman is already well known enough that he has copycats and is largely accepted as a figure for good in the public eye and one that doesn’t kill. So there’s a better than even chance that the people of Gotham won’t accept that Batman has suddenly become a murderer. Though even if they don’t accept it, it does still call suspicion off Harvey.

If Batman’s aim is to protect his friend Harvey from any kind of legal consequences then Batman taking the blame for the murders may really work out for him. Dent was a beloved figure in the police department and justice system. He was a crusader of a DA who championed the police department in the Courtroom and he ran for District Attorney with the slogan Take Back Gotham (the subtext being from the mobs that have overrun it).

Batman is right when he describes Dent as someone that the city’s law enforcement need as a light against the corruption that had threatened to overwhelm it. Having Batman as a scapegoat would likely provide all the political and legal cover that the Gotham PD and DA’s office need to never bring charges against Dent. As an aside, it is unlikely that the Gotham City District Attorney’s Office would be involved with this case. To avoid the appearance of (or actual) bias, an outside DA’s office would be the ones to actually prosecute Dent if charges were ever brought. The same thing is done in the real world when a police department has to investigate one of its own officers. You can look at some of the high profile officer shootings that have been in the news lately for how this plays out. Suffice to say, if Batman and more importantly Gordon decide this is the way to go then it will probably work. Gordon would be the one writing the official report and if there’s nothing in that report to implicate Dent, then the Gotham DA’s office could stay on the case. This would not be a difficult cover-up, all things considered. That is, unless Dent lived. If Harvey/Two-Face is still alive they’re going to have to figure out how to deal with that. Even Gordon and Batman would have to admit that he shouldn’t be DA anymore and that’s going to lead to some questions that may best be addressed in their own post. 

But the ultimate question that stands out at the end of the movie is should Batman have taken the fall for Two-Face? I say no, he shouldn’t have.

We have to look back at the origin movie for this iteration of Batman and consider why Bruce Wayne put on the cape and cowl in the first place. In Batman Begins we see Rachel throw Bruce’s rich kid pain in his face by introducing him to the corruption in Gotham via a nightclub and a mobster named Falcone. Falcone has been buying up judges, the DA, and cops so he can run the city’s drug trade without fear of the law. Young Bruce confronts him but realizes he can’t win the fight in the open so he becomes the Batman in order to fight criminals that the Justice System, because of its internal corruption, couldn’t touch. So we know that from his beginning Batman has been trying to clean up Gotham’s justice system and to make sure that outside influences didn’t have a place in how justice was done.

Harvey Dent as Two-Face killed at least 3 people that we see in the movie then he kidnaps Gordon’s family and threatens to kill them. He has broken the law. He may have defenses to his crimes, lack of capacity due to mental illness for example, but that should be up to the justice system. By taking the blame for him, Batman becomes what he set out to stop. In his own way, he’s as bad as Falcone. He may not be paying bribes, but he does use his position and friendship with Gordon to help his other friend Dent get away with murder (literally). He’s taken the system into his own hands to protect his friend and confidant. Yes, he does it because he thinks it will help the system, but Batman is not known for making exceptions in his war on crime.

Batman is traditionally seen as having a single minded devotion to justice and being willing to sacrifice almost anything to see justice done (including his health, sanity, and occasionally a kid sidekick, poor Jason). In every other iteration of Batman he has committed Harvey to the justice system to get help, in Arkham usually, though there’s a legitimate debate over whether anyone can find help in Arkham. Point is, Nolan’s Batman sets out to clean up the system, to make sure that money and power can’t protect people who break the law. Harvey Dent breaks the law and Batman, because of Dent’s power and influence, uses his own power to make sure Dent never faces justice. It doesn’t match up with the character of Batman as a whole and more annoyingly it’s internally inconsistent with this Batman in particular.

So, all things considered the answer to the question is no, Batman should never have taken the rap for Harvey Dent/Two-Face’s murders. It likely doesn’t help Dent in the long run and it really isn’t in keeping with the character of Batman that we’ve come to know over the last 80 years or with this Batman that we’d gotten to know over two movies. Batman is champion of justice, in the DC cannon he may be even more a champion of the justice system than any other character. For him to decide that the system shouldn’t prosecute Dent is totally out of character for Bats. I guess the Joker won this one after all.  

AbbyShot's Eleventh Doctor's Purple Coat