When you are Lost in Space, what do you do with a stowaway that has committed everything from identity theft to murder? In the case of the Robinson family on the Jupiter 2, they lock that person in a storage compartment. Don’t worry, the “prisoner” gets fed and escorted to the bathroom while handcuffed.
Problem: Is that legal? Sure, the Robinson family is literally lost in space, but that does not give license to just violate civil rights. On the flip side, you can’t have a manipulative psychopath running around. Think of the risk to the children.
Is Confining Dr. Smith to a Storage Compartment False Imprisonment?
False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another. Cal. Pen. Code § 236. This can be further described as a false arrest, where there is an unlawful taking of a person into custody. Roberts v. City of Los Angeles, 109 Cal.App.3d 625, 634 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). As neither of the Robinson parents are law enforcement, it is easy to see the confinement of Dr. Smith as a false arrest and thus false imprisonment. However, that ipso facto analysis would ignore the fact Dr. Smith has committed many crimes ranging from murder aboard the Resolute, identity theft, false impersonation, fraud, battery upon Will Robinson by tying him up, false imprisonment of Will Robinson, and kidnapping Maureen.
Maureen and John Robinson have a strong argument they have placed Dr. Smith under citizen’s arrest. The law states a private person may arrest another:
For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
Cal. Pen. Code § 837.
Dr. Smith kidnapped Maureen when Smith forced Maureen to the alien wreck in season 1, episode 9, Resurrection. That crime was committed in Maureen’s presence, since she was the victim of the crime. That is grounds enough to confine Dr. Smith. Add in the crimes against Will Robinson, it is amazing Dr. Smith was not tossed out an airlock. However, the fact Dr. Smith was placed in confinement, demonstrated an intent to follow due process and not the collapse of civil society, despite the fact of being lost in space. If the family is ever reunited with the Resolute, Dr. Smith can be turned over to the authorities for her crimes.
Prison escapes! Accessory Liability! Martial Law! Infants Flying Spaceships! Abandoned Droids! Gabby Martin, Thomas Harper, and I, took deep drives into the many legal issues in The MandalorianChapters 6 and 7.
Interested law students can apply to serve as counsel in our fifth mock trial at San Diego Comic Fest, to be held on March 7, 2020, at the Four Points by Sheraton in San Diego.
This year’s Comic Fest will celebrate the centennials of Ray Bradbury and Ray Harryhausen with guests including Bill Sienkiewicz, J. Michael Straczynski, Marv Wolfman, and many more.
This year’s mock trial will be the Adoption Petition for The Child by The Mandalorian. Interested law students can apply below. Attorney coaches will work with the law students and witnesses on their respective cases. The teams will represent the Petitioner Mandalorian for his Adoption Petition for The Child and the Respondent Background Check Agency who conducted the Home Study. The Bench Brief will be available after the conclusion of The Mandalorian Season 1.
The Sorgan Krill Farmers contracted with The Mandalorian in a contract for services that was straight out of Magnum PI: The Mandalorian would provide security services against raiders in exchange for lodging. While the Mandalorian and the Child were not in the guesthouse at Robin’s Nest, they did get a nice barn for their lodging with food services. Was that a valid contract?
Taking inspiration from Hawaiian law, a “landlord and tenant may agree to any consideration, not otherwise prohibited by law, as rent.” HRS § 521-21. In this case, the consideration is performance of security services. As there was not a written rental agreement between the parties as to the tenancy of a lease, the tenancy is a month-to-month lease. HRS § 521-22. However, as there was no written contract, the lease could be unenforceable under the statute of frauds. HRS § 490:2A-201. However, since there was contract performance by the Mandalorian and Cara Dune, this arguably would eliminate the statute of frauds issue. See, Shannon v. Waterhouse, 58 Hawai’i 4, 5-6, 563 P.2d 391, 393 (1977).
The contract for security services in exchange for lodging was likely valid, but does have an issue with the lease agreement not being in writing.
Was there aPartnership Agreement between Mandalorian and Cara Dune?
The Mandalorian immediately sought the assistance of Care Dune to assist in providing security services to the Sorgan Krill Farmers. Did this alliance form a partnership between the Mandalorian and Dune?
A partnership is “the association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners of a business for profit forms a partnership, whether or not the persons intend to form a partnership. . . .” Hirschfeld v. Hirschfeld, 50 Conn. App. 280, 287 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998), citing Conn. General Statutes § 34-314.
The Mandalorian and Care Dune provided security services together for the Sorgan Krill Farmers, in exchange for lodging. Moreover, Dune was paid “lunch money” as her initial consideration to join the partnership. While neither truly followed the formal requirements to form of partnership, their conduct did show two individuals working together for profit. This is the classic definition of a partnership, or at least a joint venture.
Did the Sorgan Farmers fail to disclose a material fact about the AT-ST?
Not all surprises are good. The Sorgan Krill Farmers failing to tell the Mandalorian and Cara Dune about the Raiders’ Imperial Walker would fall into the “not good” surprise category. The issue for their security contract is whether the non-disclosure of that material fact could make the contract voidable. There are situations when a contracting party has a duty to speak about a material fact that can amount to concealment.
There can be a duty to speak about a material fact under four situations:
It may be directly imposed by statuteor other prescriptive law;
It may be voluntarily assumed by contractualundertaking;
It may arise as an incident of a relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff; and
It may arise as a result of other conduct by the defendant that makes it wrongful for him to remain silent.
CACI No. 1901 citing SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Central Pacific Bank 207 Cal.App.4th 859, 860 (2012).
The tort elements for concealment are:
1) The defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact;
2) Thedefendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff;
3)The defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with theintent to defraud the plaintiff;
4) The plaintiff must have been unaware of thefact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed orsuppressed fact, and
5) As a result of the concealment or suppression of thefact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.
Boschma v. Home Loan Center,Inc. 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248 (2011)
The Sorgan Krill Farmers would have had a duty to disclose their knowledge of the AT-ST, because the fact there was an Imperial Walker would have been voluntarily assumed by the contractual undertaking; that it would have arose as an incident of a relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff; and it was just wrong for them to remain silent about the Walker. That was a material fact that went to the performance of the contract and should have been disclosed. However, it is unlikely the Farmers intended to defraud the Mandalorian and simply were clueless to the importance of disclosing the fact the fact there was an AT-ST. This did require an immediate contract modification to teach the Farmers how to defend themselves, opposed to voiding the contract.
Does leaving Stormtrooper heads on pikes violate public health laws against desecration of a corpse? Can you leave a child in a spaceship without adult supervision? Joshua Gilliland, Gabby Martin, and Thomas Harper explore these issues and more in The Mandalorianepisode The Gunslinger.
How do you atone for the sin of turning a child over to fascists for medical experimentation that would be a war crime? In the Mandalorian’s case, you go save the kid in a way that makes Clint Eastwood in Unforgiving look restrained.
Spoilers ahead for The Mandalorian, Chapter 3, The Sin.
Did the Mandalorian have a Duty to Rescue Child from the Imperial Remnant?
The law does not impose a duty to rescue a stranger absent a special relationship. Moreover, there is no duty to protect others from the criminal acts of third parties. Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn. 2d 658, 674-75 (Wash. 1998), citing W. PAGE KEETON ET AL., PROSSER AND KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS § 56 (5th ed. 1984) and Hutchins v. 1001 Fourth Ave. Assocs., 116 Wn.2d 217, 223 (1991).
A “special relationship” can arise when one party is entrusted with the well-being of another individual. Folsom, *675, citing Lauritzen v. Lauritzen, 74 Wn. App. 432, 440, 874 P.2d 861 (1994). One of those situations is when someone has a custodial relationship to another. Stangle v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 198 Cal.App.3d 971, 974-75 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988), and Rest.2d Torts, § 314A.
The Mandalorian arguably had developed a custodial relationship with the Child based on the following events: finding the Child; protecting the Child from IG-11; protecting the Child from the Trandoshan bounty hunters; and refusing the Jawa offer to take the Child in exchange for the stolen parts to the Razor Crest. During this entire series of events, the Mandalorian had a custodial relationship with the Child. Moreover, the Mandalorian’s actions arguably put him “in loco parentis” to the Child, which is when “to a person who has put himself in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming the obligations incident to the parental relation without going through the formalities necessary to legal adoption.” Fuller v. Fuller, 247 A.2d 767, 770 (D.C. 1968), citing Niewiadomski v. United States, 159 F.2d 683, 686 (6th Cir. 1947), cert. denied, 331 U.S. 850, 67 S.Ct. 1730, 91 L.Ed. 1859. Moreover, “in loco parentis” only arises when someone is “willing to assume all the obligations and to receive all the benefits associated with one standing as a natural parent to a child.” Id.
The Mandalorian provided the Child safety and security while the Child was in his care. Moreover, the only time the Child cried was when Stormtroopers took the Child away for medical experimentation. Based upon the above series of events, The Mandalorian had developed a “special relationship” with the Child, which mandated rescuing the Child from the Imperial Remnant.
Was the Mandalorian’s Raid on the Imperials Justified under the Defense of Others?
Yoda said to Luke Skywalker, “A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack.” The Mandalorian did not get that memo. Moreover, an attack on an aggressor upon another could justify an attack upon the aggressor under the defense of others. The question is whether the defense of others justified the Mandalorian raiding an Imperial compound to rescue the Child.
A person has engaged in perfect defense of others – and is not guilty of homicide – if he kills a person with, “an honest and reasonable belief in the need to defend himself or others from great bodily injury or death.” People v. Garcia, B259708, at *6-7 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2016), citing People v. Valenzuela 199 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1227 (2011), quoting People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 674-675; § 197, subd. 3. The subjective belief of danger negates the malice necessary to make the homicide murder, which then turns to the issue of whether that belief was reasonable. Garcia, citing People v. Rodriguez 53 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1269 (1997).
Did the Mandalorian have an honest and reasonable belief that he needed to defend the Child from the Imperials? The Mandalorian watched with his infrared scope, that also picked up audio, a conversation between the Client and Dr. Pershing directing the Doctor to quickly extract the necessary material from the Child because the Client could no longer guarantee Dr. Pershing’s safety. Coupled with every Bounty Hunter having been retained by the Client to terminate the Child, the Mandalorian did have an honest and reasonable belief the Child was in mortal danger from the Client having Dr. Pershing conduct a medical procedure that could kill the Child. This reasonable belief would negate the malice required for murdering fourteen Stormtroopers and makes his use of force justifiable in order to save the Child.
Let’s not forget the Imperials were the ones who had blown up planets and waged wars on civilian populations in their Doctrine of Fear. It would be unreasonable to not see them as an imminent threat to anyone in their custody.
Self Defense Against Bounty Hunters
The entire Bounty Hunters Guild all had tracking fobs activate after the Mandalorian rescued the Child from the Imperials. This resulted in the Bounty Hunters confronting the Mandalorian and a shootout with at least sixteen other Bounty Hunters.
The doctrine of self-defense requires a person to reasonably believe that their safety was endangered. Over a dozen Bounty Hunters surrounded the Mandalorian. The Client had retained those very same Bounty Hunters to kill the Child. Moreover, Greef Karga had stated earlier the other Bounty Hunters wanted the Mandalorian dead for his success in finding the Child. Furthermore, during the shootout Karga also stated a threat to kill the Mandalorian and strip his body for parts. There was more than enough of a reasonable belief for the Mandalorian to fear for his life, and that of the Child, for him to claim self-defense in his gunfight with the Bounty Hunters.
