Did Mitch and Tiff have a Duty to Rescue in Camp Cretaceous?

February 1, 2021

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).

Recovering from the Federal Government for Injuries Sustained from Dinosaur Attacks While Camping

Josh Gilliland

September 16, 2019

The Jurassic World short Battle at Big Rock tells the story of campers who are attacked by an allosaurus at Big Rock National Park in California. Since the attack happened in a National Park, could the family recover from the Federal Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act?

The issue on whether the family could recover depends on if the National Parks Service knew there were dinosaurs in the National Park. An argument for recovery can be made based on cases with campers attacked by bears.

In one case, a camper who was attacked by a bear at night in his sleeping bag could recover where the park ranger told the camper there was no danger of bear attacks, even though there had been a bear attack a few days before. As such, there was a danger of attack and the park ranger failed to warn the camper. Claypool v. United States, 98 F. Supp. 702 (D. Cal. 1951).

In another case, a bear injured a camper while the camper slept in his car with his window rolled down and his arm on the sill. In that case, there were not any acts of negligence by the government for a case under the Federal Tort Claims Act, because the bear that attacked was not known for violence unless provoked. Ashley v. United States, 215 F. Supp. 39 (D. Neb. 1963), aff’d, 326 F.2d 499 (8th Cir. 1964).

In a case in Yellowstone Park, a camper was given specific warnings about bear attacks, nevertheless, was attacked by a bear in his tent. The bear had placed its paw on the camper’s chest while he slept, which ended in a mauling after the camper woke up startled. The attack was in the most populated part of the campgrounds that included the fire station, gas station, store, ranger’s office, and lighted restrooms. The court found the attack was completely unforeseeable, thus there was no negligence on the park staff, because they had duty to warn of an unforeseeable attack. Rubenstein v. United States, 338 F. Supp. 654 (N.D. Cal. 1972), aff’d, 488 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1973).

What does this mean for our family of campers? The issue for them is foreseeability. The campers themselves were surprised to see dinosaurs in the national park, which implied that dinosaurs were not known to be in that part of California. As such, if the National Park service did not know about the presence of dinosaurs, they had no duty to warn about an unforeseeable attack. Alternatively, if the park rangers knew about dinosaurs and did not warn the campers about the risk of encountering a dinosaur, the campers could recover under the Federal Tort Claims Act, because the rangers were negligent in not warning about dinosaurs.

Based on the end credits of the short, an aggressive dinosaur remediation plan would need to be enacted by the Federal and State Governments to protect human life.

Can Law Find a Way to Save the Dinosaurs of Jurassic World?

Josh Gilliland

July 5, 2018

Any Court will take judicial notice that anyone who would leave a brachiosaurus to die in a volcano is an inhuman monster who is undeserving of love [expert testimony would be needed to determine why they have no hearts, such as they weren’t hugged by the mother in childhood]. Sure, adopting a rescue brachiosaurus would be grossly impractical, but the same is true of white rhinos, and we want them to live. Practicalities aside, are the dinosaurs in Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom a protected by Endangered Species or an Invasive Species?

Are Genetically Created Dinosaurs an Endangered Species?

The law defines a “species” as “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” 16 U.S. CODE § 1532(16). The dinosaurs of Jurassic World are wildlife, but there is a question whether they interbreed in order to reproduce. If all dinosaurs are created by the cunning and well dressed Dr. Henry Wu, they technically do not meet the plain text of the Endangered Species Act. However, if they do breed in adulthood, they arguably are a “species” even if originally created in a lab.

The test to determine whether a species is endangered asks: Is the species “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” 16 U.S. CODE § 1532(6). Moreover, a species can be considered “endangered” because of “natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.” 16 USCS § 1533(a)(1)(E).

A species is “threatened” if it is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” 16 U.S. CODE § 1532(20); Conservation Force, Inc. v. Jewell, 733 F.3d 1200, 1202 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

The volcano on Isla Nublar had become active and was predicted to have a cataclysmic eruption. Nothing says species “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” like hot lava flooding over an island. Even though dinosaurs are endangered, that does not create an independent duty to any country to mount a rescue mission to evacuate them from Isla Nublar. Moreover, rescuing dinosaurs could create another danger: Invasive Species.

Protecting Humans from Invasive Species

The danger of invasive species is a real one faced in the United States, from pythons in Florida to zebra mussels in the Great Lakes. Congress described the danger as follows:

When environmental conditions are favorable, nonindigenous species become established, may compete with or prey upon native species of plants, fish, and wildlife, may carry diseases or parasites that affect native species, and may disrupt the aquatic environment and economy of affected nearshore areas;

16 USCS section 4701(a)(2).

Pterodactyls picking off children in backyards or Utahraptors snacking on neighborhood pets might not have been the original dangers envisioned by Congress with preventing invasive species from entering ecosystems, but the laws clearly are in place to prevent such environmental disruption by dinosaurs introduced (or re-introduced) to the United States.

Presidential Executive Order 13112 (February 3, 1999) states that Invasive Species Are Not Protected by the Endangered Species Act. Federal agencies are to prevent the introduction of invasive species and “respond rapidly” to control the populations of invasive species. Subsections (i) and (ii). Moreover, the Government is to “provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded.” Subsection (iv). Furthermore, Federal Agencies are charged with promoting “public education on invasive species and the means to address them.” Subsection (vi).

The Federal Government’s response to a dozen plus dinosaurs being introduced in California would need to be switch. Large predators such as a Tyrannosaurus Rex would either need to be exterminated by the military or somehow incapacitated and transferred to a special wildlife reserve, ideally off the US mainland. Dinosaurs would immediately upset the ecosystem, adding human beings as ready to serve meals. Large herbivores would ne extremely adorable, but disrupt the agricultural economy of California. Slow grazing Triceratops or Ankylosaurus could wipe out farms in the Central Valley. While exterminating such creatures would be the moral equivalent of murdering Golden Retrievers, the introduction of large herbivores would disrupt the economy, cause the loss of property, and possibly risk lives. Or they could be super cute and loyal. If the latter, farmers would figure out for life to find a way to coexist. If the former, expect Fish and Game to look more like Special Forces with anti-tank weapons to remediate dinosaur infestations.

Dinosaur Liability on Your Property

The mansion of Benjamin Lockwood served as an auction house for buyers of dinosaurs imported to California. Disregarding the fact a cargo ship could travel to California within 24 hours (which would require the ship to cross 4,300+ miles of ocean at a speed of 181.5 miles per hour or 157.788706 Knots), there are serious liability issues for those injured by dinosaurs. Moreover, the Pachycephalosaurus in the room is it is illegal to import animals that are either wild or endangered into the United States, or its territorial waters, or on the high seas. Safari Club Int’l v. Babbitt, No. 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21795, at *19-20 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 1993), citing 50 C.F.R. § 10.12 and 16 U.S.C.S. § 1538(A)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Furthermore, the Secretary of the Interior can regulate the wild animals that are “injurious to human beings” to be prohibited from being imported into the United States. 18 U.S.C.S. § 42(a)(1). Cruising straight to a castle in Northern California with a ship full of dinosaurs that could eat, step on, or cause other blunt trauma to human beings, would violate US laws on dangerous wild animals entering the country.

Numerous auction attendees were eaten or maimed by dinosaurs at Lockwood manor. One of the few California cases where a guest was injured by an animal at a residence, a business or a hotel/motel was over a spider bite. Brunelle v. Signore, 215 Cal. App. 3d 122, 127 (1989). The Brunelle Court explained that in order for an owner of a private residence to have a duty to protect guests from spider bites, the owner must: 1) there must be specific knowledge the insect or sider is indigenous to the area; 2) the homeowner has knowledge that a specific harmful insect is prevalent in the area where his residence is located; 3) the homeowner knows the harmful inspect is inside or outside the home; and (4) either the homeowner of injured guest had seen the specific insect that bit the guest either before or after the bite occurred. Brunelle, at *129-30.

Eli Mills invited auction attendees to the Lockwood estate for the purpose of buying dangerous animals to be used in war or private big game hunting. The dangers of the dinosaurs were self-evident, given the known lethal abilities of the creatures, the dinosaurs were kept in cages to prevent injury, and it was established attendees knew of the dinosaurs there, as did Mills. As such, the entire auction of illegally imported wild animals would make Eli Mills strictly liable for all injuries. There is an argument Benjamin Lockwood’s estate in probate would not be liable, because Mills had breached his scope of employment in his management of Lockwood’s affairs.

Compassionate Californians who try rescuing dinosaurs should be warned that a “wild animal is presumed to be vicious and since the owner of such animal…is an insurer against the acts of the animal to anyone who is injured…” Baugh v. Beatty, 91 Cal. App. 2d 786, 791, (1949) (case involving an attack by a chimpanzee). Anyone who owns a “rescue dinosaur” that injures another person would be strictly liable for any damages caused by said dinosaur. If pet dinosaurs became an issue, states likely would classify them as exotic pets that are dangerous wild animals (like a ferret with rabies) and order the animals destroyed. (See, Raynor v. Maryland Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 110 Md. App. 165, 182 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996)).

Federal Agencies would have a massive PSA campaign pursuant to Executive Order 13112 on the dangers of adopting dinosaurs and how to avoid injury, such as how not to be eaten by a Allosaurus while jogging, don’t try to ride a Stegosaurus, and high students should not do the Compsognathus saliva challenge.

Law Finds a Way

The purpose of law is to protect people from wrongs. Laws hold civil societies together. When people discover a situation where injuries happen, laws are enacted to prevent future harm. In the case of genetically created dinosaurs, laws would be enacted at the Federal and state levels to protect both human life, and the dinosaurs, to ensure both could live free of injury. That might not be an exciting movie, but law would find a law.

Could Velociraptors Be Used in War?

Josh Gilliland

June 30, 2015

InGen’s military weapons branch in Jurassic World had the goal of producing Raptors to be used by the military. Could Raptors be weaponized like a meat-eating drone? Would the use of Raptors in combat be a war crime?

Oddly enough, it looks like the use of the animals would be legal, but that would likely be short-lived until their first military use.

Animals and National Defense

The military has used animals in the past for national defense. The US Navy has done extensive work with dolphins for decades. US Law allows the Secretary of Defense to authorize the taking of not more than 25 marine mammals annually for national defense. 10 USCS § 7524(a). There are specific requirements on the treatment of “Ensign Flipper” and “Skipper Sammy the Seal,” such as humane treatment. 10 USCS § 7524(b). Moreover, endangered species may not be taken for the military program.

There is the infamous article from Parade Magazine in 1978 that recounted a story denied by the Naval officer it was attributed to, stating:

“Some of the most valuable members the U.S. Navy are dolphins trained to defend American naval bases.

During the Vietnam war, squads of killer dolphins pulled guard duty at our billion-dollar Cam Ranh Bay base, now reputedly controlled by the Soviets. According to James Fitzgerald, former chief of the CIA’s Office of Dolphin Research: “With their built-in sonar, the dolphins detected enemy demolition divers on sabotage missions. They impaled them with long hypodermic needles connected to carbon dioxide cartridges. The frogmen just blew up.’

One of these days the Navy is going to release the account of how “some 60 North Vietnamese frogmen were nullified.’ “

Fitzgerald v. Penthouse Int’l (D.Md. 1981) 525 F.Supp. 585, 595, quoting Parade Magazine, Our Unsung Heroes, Sept. 10, 1978, at p. 8.

Regardless of whether or not “killer dolphins” were used in Vietnam in what sounds more like science fiction than fact, the military has a history using marine mammals for national defense.

Would the Army use Raptors? While there is a General who would be tempted to drop 20 Raptors on an ISIS camp, Raptors are not like dolphins or seals. Marine Mammals are not known for EATING people. There is a high risk that the use of Raptors in combat would end with every human fighting not to be a hot lunch for a Rambo Raptor.

Are Raptors Prohibited Weapons?

International treaties prohibit the use of chemical weapons, poison gases, and biological weapons (See, Geneva Protocol, Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention, Chemical Weapons Convention, and Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court).

There is nothing really on point with animals used for hand-to-hand combat, since we generally see service dogs being used to help soldiers for security, rescue, or bomb detention. History lacks stories of Stalin’s Killer Bear Brigades defeating Nazis at Stalingrad. Military planners have moved long past Calvary riding horses and replaced them with helicopters. As such, modern warfare lacks tales of elephants used as tanks.

This does not mean there cannot be cruelty to animals in war. However, the use of Raptors could be allowed because there is a lack of anything prohibiting it. That being said, as soon as the first iPhone video of a Raptor chewing on a terrorist hits social media, expect that to change in the fictional universe of Jurassic World.

Inside Out of Jurassic World

Josh Gilliland

June 26, 2015

It is time to talk about the summer hits Jurassic World and Inside Out. Jess takes on the issues of Inside Out while I take on the issues of Jurassic World. Can parents let their child walk to school in a big city? What is the liability for a dinosaur attack? Moreover, why would middle class parents getting divorced have at least five attorneys working on the case?

Employee Safety at Jurassic World

Josh Gilliland

June 18, 2015

How can an amusement park with a zoo full of dinosaurs ensure the safety of their employees?

Jurassic World is not just a story of survival for when Man Plays God with Nature, but one of employee safety. This film must be especially freighting for OSHA inspectors.

InGen might have selected Isla Nublar not just for its tropical environment for the genetically engineered dinosaurs, but as a way to escape US laws on employee safety. Shipping companies have registered vessels in foreign ports for decades to avoid US law. US companies open factories in other countries, so they can pay overseas employees a fraction of what they would pay a US employee with none of the strict safety laws. InGen attorneys could have used a similar strategy to limit liability for employees who are killed or maimed by a dinosaur.

All states in the United States have laws on employee safety. California law states:

(a) Every employer shall furnish employment and a place of employment that is safe and healthful for the employees therein.

(b) On multiemployer worksites, both construction and nonconstruction, citations may be issued only to the following categories of employers when the division has evidence that an employee was exposed to a hazard in violation of any requirement enforceable by the division:

(1) The employer whose employees were exposed to the hazard (the exposing employer).

(2) The employer who actually created the hazard (the creating employer).

(3) The employer who was responsible, by contract or through actual practice, for safety and health conditions on the worksite, which is the employer who had the authority for ensuring that the hazardous condition is corrected (the controlling employer).

(4) The employer who had the responsibility for actually correcting the hazard (the correcting employer). The employers listed in paragraphs (2) to (4), inclusive, of this subdivision may be cited regardless of whether their own employees were exposed to the hazard.

Cal Lab Code § 6400.

The Jurassic World paddocks were specifically designed for different dinosaurs to keep them from injuring employees and guests. However, the escape of the Indominus Rex, which resulted in the breach of the aviary, thus freeing Pterodactyls and Dimorphodons, which resulted in a mass casualty event for employees and island guests, equivalently highlights the dangers of working at the park.

Employee deaths at Jurassic World included two men at the Indominus Rex paddock, nearly the entire Asset Containment Unit killed by the Indominus Rex, the two ACU team members killed in the helicopter crash (caused by the CEO Simon Masrani, who was not a licensed helicopter pilot, thus recklessly endangering the lives of those flying with him), at least one employee by the old Jurassic Park entrance, and a substantial number of the InGen private security team killed by Raptors.

Masrani’s helicopter flight was the tipping point that put over 21,000 lives at risk. An unlicensed pilot should not have taken off with passengers for a combat mission to kill the Indominus Rex. The engagement ended with driving the Indominus Rex into breaching the aviary, which resulted in the loss of the helicopter after a mid-air collision with a Pterodactyl. The guest and employee casualties from the Pterodactyls and Dimorphodons would not have happened “but for” the crash of Masrani’s helicopter. Calling in additional forces would have been the reasonably prudent decision for keeping everyone at Jurassic World safe.

Perhaps the cruelest employee death was Zara, Claire’s personal assistant who was relegated to keeping an eye on Claire’s nephews Grey and Zach. It is a good bet Zara’s scope of employment did not include playing nanny, which ended with her being abducted by a Pterodactyl, dropped into the Monsasaurus tank, abducted again by a Pterodactyl, and then eaten by Monsasaurus. This highlights Jurassic World was neither “safe” or “healthful” for employees if they could become a hot lunch for escaped dinosaurs. Moreover, Zara might have had a discrimination claim based on national original that British women are inherently nannies.

These deaths and injuries were all connected by the escape of the Indominus Rex. Jurassic World scientists literally and figuratively created the hazard of the Indominus Rex. The hybrid dinosaur would not have existed “but for” Jurassic World creating the creature with unknown physical abilities, heighten intelligence, and increased aggression from both “nature” and “nurture.” The fact the creature existed was a threat to employee safety.

A less dramatic issue of employee safety was the pig wrangler at the Raptor paddock. An employee who attempted to catch a running pig was pulled off a catwalk and landed in the Raptor pen. This entire high-risk activity could have been avoided if the pig wrangler had been clipped to a safety cable above the catwalk with a fall restraint in the event of being pulled over the side. The cost of installing these devices would be insignificant compared to a lawsuit for an employee eaten alive by Raptors.

Juris Rex: Jurassic World Class Action Litigation

Josh Gilliland

June 15, 2015

Bringing the magic of dinosaurs to life has a high price when it comes to the safety of those visiting Jurassic World. Corporate counsel would have a nervous breakdown with the class action that would soon hit InGen like an Ankylosaurus after the events in the movie.

As InGen’s genetics lab was based in Palo Alto, California (at least in the original book), we will apply California law for our analysis.

InGen attorneys likely had a choice of law and forum selection clause in their travel packages to Isla Nublar off Costa Rica. A prospective forum selection clause for Jurassic World would ideally be in a venue that would be friendly to an amusement park-zoo with dinosaurs, likely with a statutory cap on damages. InGen attorneys might attempt a bold legal move and require all cases would to be brought in Costa Rica.

Attempting to bind all possible dinosaur-injury litigation to Costa Rica would fail. First, California Courts may “exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” Cal Code Civ Proc § 410.10. Moreover, if the tickets for Jurassic World required litigation to be in Costa Rica, that clause would serve as a “functional equivalent of a contractual waiver of consumer protection” and would be prohibited by California law, thus rendering the forum selection clause unenforceable, because “rights of California consumers would be substantially diminished if forced to litigate in” a remote venue. Clark v. First Union Securities, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1595, 1613, citing America Online, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1.

Failure to Protect Attendees from Harm as a Common Carrier

There are key moments after Indominus Rex escaped her paddock that Claire Dearing did not order the evacuation of the island. A containment team was instead sent with non-lethal weapons to capture the escaped Indominus Rex. After the mission failure, all park attendees were moved to a central area, where they became a giant target.

Litigation would focus on Claire’s decisions which ultimately resulted in a mass casualty event.

A trial attorney would build the following case theme: Attendees arrived at Isla Nublar by InGen ferry. The ferries were the sole way for guests to travel to or form the island. As such, the guests were totally under the care of Jurassic World, since there would be no way to escape the island without an InGen ferry.

These facts make a very strong case that Jurassic World was a common carrier, not just a zoo where attendees were business invitees, effectively making attendees “passengers” until their return to Costa Rica by ferry.

A common carrier is normally a boat, train, bus, or plane that is a carrier of persons for “reward” (payment). Cal Civ Code § 2100. A common carrier “must use the utmost care and diligence for [the passengers] safe carriage, must provide everything necessary for that purpose, and must exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill.” Id.

Amusement parks with roller coasters have been found to be common carriers under Cal Civ Code §§ 2100 and 2101. Gomez v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal 4th 1125 (in a case about an injury on the Indiana Jones ride at Disneyland).

Everyone who was on Isla Nublar arrived there by ferry (which is a traditional common carrier); Jurassic World’s operations were overseen by a control room of InGen professionals to ensure the safety of the attendees from the dinosaurs; and InGen employed a paramilitary strike team to subdue escaped dinosaurs.

All Jurassic World attendees were trapped on an island with a rogue dinosaur on a murder-feeding frenzy. The island itself was a giant rollercoaster where attendees were totally under the care of Jurassic World. As such, a good lawyer could establish that Jurassic World owed its attendees the “utmost care and diligence” and had to exercise a reasonable degree of skill. Not ordering an evacuation was a failure to provide the “utmost care and diligence” to the park attendees.

Liability for Dinosaur Attacks

The law requires that the owners of domesticated animals must protect third parties from animal known to have “vicious habits or disposition.” Gooding v. Chutes Co. (1909) 155 Cal. 620, 623. As such, where a new zoo employee was bitten by a camel known by others to have “vicious habits,” the zoo was liable for the employee’s injuries.

Dinosaurs would likely not qualify as domesticated animals, but the triceratops pony rides in the petting zoo demonstrate some domestication. Moreover, the dying Apatosaurus showed signs of being comforted in its final moments. Finally, “Team Raptor” demonstrated Raptors could work with humans, but with great risk of turning on humans.

The Indominus Rex without a doubt had “vicious habits or disposition” that was known by Jurassic World employees. The fact the creature escaped and no evacuation was ordered puts Jurassic World in the hungry jaws of plaintiff lawyers for their failure to protect attendees.

Property Liability for Indominus Rex

Plaintiff attorneys would argue that Jurassic World was negligent as a property owner for the failure to use “reasonable care to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition.” 1-1000 CACI 1001. Moreover, this duty required Jurassic World to “discover any unsafe conditions and to repair, replace, or give adequate warning of anything that could be reasonably expected to harm others.” Id. The failure to warn of the risk of the escaped Indominus Rex was an unsafe condition that put attendees at risk.

A jury would consider these factors in deciding whether Jurassic World exercised reasonable care per the California Jury Instructions:

(a) The location of the property;

The fact Isla Nublar is over 100 miles off Costa Rica with dangerous dinosaurs will not end well with a jury for the Defendant.

(b) The likelihood that someone would come on to the property in the same manner as the Plaintiffs did;

Jurassic World was an amusement park, thus a high likelihood all vistors would enter the property the same way.

(c) The likelihood of harm;

The “likelihood of harm” includes being either eaten or stepped on by a dinosaur, which was well known thanks to the first three movies.

(d) The probable seriousness of such harm;

A jury would not need any expert testimony on the probable seriousness of being eaten by a dinosaur.

(e) Whether Jurassic World knew or should have known of the condition that created the risk of harm;

There is no question of knowledge of the risk.

(f) The difficulty of protecting against the risk of such harm; [and]

Humans engaging dinosaurs in combat was proven to be extremely dangerous to humans in all of the Jurassic Park films. However, removing all attendees by ferry while the Indominus Rex was on the other half of the island would have been time consuming, but not prohibitively difficult.

(g) The extent of Jurassic World’s control over the condition that created the risk of harm; [and]

Jurassic World scientists created the Indominus Rex, thus knew the danger it posed, which is why they had the creature in a paddock that was under the control of Jurassic World.

A Verdict for Extinction

No attorney in their right mind would let a case against Jurassic World go to trial. The prospect of a crushing judgment with punitive damages would force settlement as quickly as possible. The issue for the Plaintiffs would be ensuring the settlement is just for those injured by dinosaurs or surviving family members.

12 Page 1 of 2