San Diego Comic Con 2019 Panel Schedule for The Legal Geeks!

By

-

July 7, 2019

We will be at San Diego Comic Con with three panels celebrating the Marvel Cinematic Universe, The Clone Wars, and Godzilla! We hope you can join us for fun, legal analysis, and geeking out at the 50th Anniversary of San Diego Comic Con. We are honored to return to SDCC for our 5th appearance. Please see below for more on our panel schedule.

Law of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Thursday, 100pm, Comic Con Museum

Ten years of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has created a body of law big enough for Nowhere. Join our panel of judges and lawyers as they journey into legal tales to astonish of how Dr. Strange saved the world with contract law; whether Bucky commit treason as the Winter Soldier; and could Thanos be prosecuted as a war criminal for “The Snap?” A panel of true believers including US Magistrate Judge Mitch Dembin, Megan Hitchcock, Christine Peek (McManis Faulker), Courtney McNulty (Legendary Entertainment), Jordon Huppert (Huppert Law Office), and Joshua Gilliland (The Legal Geeks) will assemble to tackle these issues and more from the Marvel Universe.

Judges on the Clone Wars, Friday, 800pm, Room 7AB

The Clone Wars represents some of the best Star Wars stories ever told. Join our panel of judges and attorneys as they report for duty to determine the Duty to Follow Lawful Orders vs Unlawful Orders; Child Safety of Younglings; Secret Marriages; Clone Rights; and the Trial of Ashoka Tano. Panelists include Circuit Judge John B. Owens (9th Circuit Court of Appeals), Judge Carol Najera, Stephen Tollafield (Professor at Hastings School of Law), Bethany Bengfort (US Courts), Steve Chu (Assistant US Attorney), and moderated by Joshua Gilliland (The Legal Geeks).

Long Live the King of Kaiju: Lawyers on the 65th Anniversary of Godzilla

Godzilla has been a destructive force of legal liability since 1954. Who is financially responsible for Acts of Godzilla? Does the United States have a duty to defend Japan? And just who is the legal owner of Mothra’s egg? Join our panel of attorneys including US Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman, Monte Cooper (Grand Nephew of the creator of King Kong, Merian Cooper), Kathy Steinman (Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Diego), Bethany Bengfort (US Courts), and Joshua Gilliland (The Legal Geeks) as they wade into the depths of Godzilla’s destructive legal issues over the last 65 years. Moderated by Matt Weinhold (MonsterParty).

Was Thor Right to Behead Thanos?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

July 5, 2019

0

Yep. Thor was the King of Asgard. Thanos butchered Asgardian refugees, killed Heimdall with a spear, and murdered Loki by crushing the life out of him, all in front of Thor. From a purely view of a sovereign defending his kingdom, Thor literally executed a terrorist. However, modern views of law have reservations on targeted killing.

Targeted Killing Theory and Practice

There are two examples worthy of comparison to Thanos: Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy and Osama bin Laden. Both were eliminated by the United States in targeted killings. Admiral Yamamoto was the architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the commander-in-chief of the Combined Imperial Fleet during World War II. The United States had Yamamoto killed in “Operation Vengeance,” which was carried out by two P-38s ordered to shoot down the transport carrying Yamamoto. See, Barber v. Widnall, 78 F.3d 1419, 1420 (9th Cir. 1996) and First Amendment Coal. v. United States DOJ, No. C 12-1013 CW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50663, at *22-23 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2014). Osama bin Laden was the terrorist leader behind the September 11 Attacks on New York and Washington, DC, plus numerous other terrorist attacks, who was killed by Navy SEALs in a raid. The justification for this killing is predicated on the fact the United States has a right to defend itself from terrorists.

The United States frowns on placing bounties for the assassination of leaders of foreign countries since the Civil War. PREEMPTION, ASSASSINATION, AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM , 27 Campbell L. Rev. 253, 259-260, citing Hugo Grotius, The Law of War and Peace (1625) reprinted in 1 Law of War: A Documentary History 16 (Leon Friedman ed., 1972). However, it is within the norms of war to kill a leader through ambush. Id. As the US Army in 1863 with the adoption of the Lieber Code in “Army General Orders Number 100”:

The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hostile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain without trial by any captor, any more than the modern law of peace allows such international outlawry; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers or rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.

PREEMPTION, ASSASSINATION, AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM , at * 260.

Modern views on “Just War” require for a target killing that “the individual must be killed to save the lives of others, or to prevent great harm to others, and that capturing him or her will not have the same positive effect.” J Int Criminal Justice (2013) 11 (1): 47. This raises complex issues of proportionality, asking whether any due process concerns must be adjudicated if someone is targeted because of behavior alone, or behavior and status within an organization/nation state. Id. Conversely, the analysis is different for targeted killings of US citizens engaged in terrorist operations as explained in the DOJ whitepaper on targeted killings. The key question in both is whether the person targeted is a threat to the lives of others and that there is no non-lethal way to eliminate that threat. Id.

Does Thanos meet the Requirements for a Targeted Killing?

The Avengers confronted Thanos AFTER he had killed trillions of individuals with “The Snap.” Governments were barely functional across the universe. In comparison to the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, the Allies held those proceedings after they had secured victory and not defeat. Moreover, the governments of the Allied nations still functioned. The same cannot be said after The Snap.

Would killing Thanos have saved the lives of others? Likely yes, but not on the scale as before The Snap. Thanos had already completed his universal slaughter. Furthermore, he was gravely injured after using the Infinity Stones to destroy the Infinity Stones. That being said, Thanos had single handedly beaten up the Hulk, nearly killed Iron Man, killed Vision, and laid waste to Xandar in his quest for the Infinity Stones. Was he still a threat? Even with one arm, no one should count anyone that dangerous as NOT being a threat.

Justice requires a trial for anyone to be executed. Thor as the King of Asgard could have considered Thanos’s gloating as a confession, and Thor acted within his powers as a sovereign to seek retribution for his people. This would have been more in line with the targeted killing of leaders such as Yamamoto and bin Laden, but there are significant differences, namely neither had been captured at the time of death (however, Thanos had not surrendered). Thor’s actions overall do not comport with our understanding of targeted killings, but given the magnitude of death caused by Thanos across the universe, no one would complain about the lack of a trial. That does not make Thor right, but it does not make him wrong either.

What to do about Hawkeye’s 5 Year Murder Spree?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

June 24, 2019

0

Avengers Endgame opened with Hawkeye’s family all falling victim to “The Snap.” Clint Barton being of sound mind decided to avenge his family’s loss by becoming a medieval-style Punisher known as Ronin and killing criminals across the globe. Can Hawkeye be defended for killing people in Mexico City and Tokyo?

As a preliminary matter, the mass death from Thanos’s “Snap” earned the name “The Decimation.” New York was reduced to an empty ghost town. San Francisco had abandoned streets, houses, cars, and piles of garbage. It was unclear how much of civil society still functioned, but the lights were on in Tokyo. Moreover, someone built the monument to the lost just north of the Golden Gate Bridge, so some government functions continued at least in part.

Murder is “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.” 18 U.S.C.S. § 1111(a). The fact Clint Barton traveled to Mexico and Japan to kill criminals was willful conduct. There is no doubt these were premeditated killings. While definitions of murder can vary between countries, an American traveling to other countries with the intent to kill is murder in any country.

The United States has extradition treaties with both Mexico and Japan dating back to the Carter Administration. In such proceedings Courts consider whether:

(1) The judicial officer is authorized to conduct the extradition proceeding;

(2) The court has jurisdiction over the fugitive;

(3) The applicable treaty is in full force and effect;

(4) The crime(s) for which surrender is requested is/are covered by the applicable treaty; and (5) There is sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause as to each charge for which extradition is sought.

In re Extradition of Nunez, No. 10-24020-MC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37954, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2011) in applying 18 U.S.C.S. § 3184.

The Court does NOT decide on guilt or innocence in such hearings, only whether the requirements for extradition have been met. Applying the elements to Hawkeye, a US Magistrate Judge or Federal District Court Judge could conduct an extradition hearing. Secondly, if the Court was in the Western District of New York (upstate where Barton lived) or the District of Columbia if Barton’s location was unknown, jurisdiction would be proper. Third, both treaties are in full force. Finally, there would be probably cause for charging Barton with murder. Just count the dead Yakuza in Tokyo.

It is not clear if Barton murdered people in the United States, but it is safe to assume “yes.” Federal and State Courts would want first rights to prosecuting Barton for his crimes before extradition to other countries. Attorneys for Hawkeye could argue he suffered from a form of the insanity defense, but there are challenges to winning an acquittal.

The Federal Insanity Defense requires the Defendant proving by clear and convincing evidence that Hawkeye was unable to know the wrongfulness of his actions due to a severe mental disease. 18 U.S.C. § 17(b). There is a credible, by difficult argument to make, that after Hawkeye’s family disappearing around him (along with half of all life on Earth), Hawkeye suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and was unable to know the wrongfulness of his actions.

The Defense would need to offer expert testimony that linked Hawkeye’s PTSD to not understanding murdering criminals was wrong. Expert testimony on PTSD for the insanity defense has been excluded where the expert failed to connect the criminal conduct to the insanity defense. See, United States v Cartagena-Carrasquillo 70 F3d 706 (1995, CA1 Puerto Rico). It is not enough to show Barton had PTSD; the PTSD has to be the reason Barton did not know right from wrong. One might think that someone who is able to travel the world in search of criminals to execute does understand the wrongfulness of his actions. Alternatively, someone going to the lengths to commit international murder of criminals is clearly not sane.

Could a PTSD insanity defense work? In a world where over half the population died and literally everyone on the planet traumatized by it, likely yes. Jurors would absolutely understand Hawkeye’s trauma and what drove him to murder. Furthermore, Mexico and Japan likely would call a mulligan over murdered criminals given Hawkeye’s role in helping bring every Snap victim back to life.

Can Dr. Ishiro Serizawa be arrested for Contempt of Congress?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

June 12, 2019

0

The fictional Dr. Ishiro Serizawa in Godzilla King of the Monsters left a Senate hearing to respond to an emergency before the hearing was adjourned or he was excused. Could he be held in Contempt of Congress? The answer requires a little civics lesson.

Congress has the power to investigate matters related to contemplated legislation. As one Court explained, “Without the power to investigate — including of course the authority to compel testimony, either through its own processes or through judicial trial — Congress could be seriously handicapped in its efforts to exercise its constitutional function wisely and effectively.” Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 160-61 (1955).

It should go without saying that Congress would want to legislate matters pertaining to 300 foot Kaiju with radioactive fire beams. Provided that San Francisco and Las Vegas were abandoned or condemned after Godzilla 2014, the United States Government would make legislation over Titans a high priority. Moreover, funding for Monarch has to come in significant part from the US Government; so conducting a hearing into Monarch’s actions is well within Congress’s right. The only limits on this power are the prohibition from inquiring into irrelevant private affairs, cross into law enforcement, or violate the Bill of Rights. Id.

Anyone who has been called to testify before Congress who refuses to answer any question shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. The punishment is a fine between $100 to $1,000 and at least one month in common jail. 2 U.S.C.S. § 192.

In the event someone refuses to testify, Congress has three options:

1) Referral to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution of a criminal contempt of Congress charge;

2) Detention and prosecution pursuant to Congress’s inherent contempt authority; or

(3) A civil action to enforce the subpoena in a federal district court.

Comm. on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 75-76 (D.D.C. 2008), citing Prosecution for Contempt of Congress of an Executive Branch Official Who Has Asserted a Claim of Executive Privilege, 8 U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 101, 137 (1984).

Given Dr. Ishiro Serizawa’s position in Monarch, we can extrapolate that Monarch is an extension of the Executive Branch. While the exact structure of Monarch is unknown, the fact Monarch is run by U.S. military personnel aboard the massive U.S.S. Argo, it is clear there are significant ties to the US Military. Moreover, the point of the Senate hearings were whether Monarch should be placed under military control, which makes Monarch sound like NASA, but focused on Titans instead of space flight.

Dr. Serizawa could argue the information on the location of the Titans across the planet was privileged, due to the risk to human life for interacting with the creatures. [Think how dangerous it would be if a person was wrestling with an alligator while keeping a bear cub away from its mother with rods of plutonium, and the scale of “dangerous” should be comparable to a Titan.] While this could be a form of Executive Privilege, Congress has options for acquiring the information. Referring the matter to the DOJ could get ugly fast, so the more diplomatic approach would be a civil action to enforce a subpoena in Federal Court to disclose the location to the Titans. This would give a Court the opportunity to evaluate the claim of privilege and make a ruling on its validity.

The issue of Dr. Serizawa just leaving a hearing is problematic. While there was an emergency, not saying anything is extremely bad form. Congress is the one with the checkbook for giant airplanes and secret bases. They have every right in a republic to know what is going on. Arresting Dr. Serizawa would only make the situation worse, but the Chairman of the Senate Committee would be within their right to order the Senate Sargent at Arms to drag Dr. Serizawa to the committee hearing.

Did All of San Francisco Get Condemned After Godzilla 2014?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

June 7, 2019

0

The real world has over 870,887 people living in San Francisco. The fictional world of Godzilla King of the Monsters showed San Francisco with damaged buildings overgrown with vegetation. The City that survived the 1906 Earthquake did not survive MUTOs, Godzilla, and one nuclear bomb detonating off the Golden Gate Bridge. Did the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Alameda, Sausalito, Marin, and possibly other cities, get condemned after Godzilla 2014?

The State of California cannot take private property without just compensation to the property owner. Cal Const, Art. I § 19(a). However, the State can take private property without compensation under its inherent police power if responding to an emergency or remedying environmental contamination that poses a threat to public health and safety. Cal Const, Art. I § 19(c).

Giant monsters and a nuclear explosion should qualify as an “emergency” and “environmental contamination” that poses a public health risk. Basically everyone in Bay Area is at risk for getting radiation poisoning and multiple forms of cancer. That should justify condemning multiple counties around San Francisco Bay, possibly up the California Delta, and farmland in the Central Valley. If the water supply to the southern part of California was contaminated, much of the state could become unlivable without new water sources. The entire State cannot get a Silkwood Shower to wash away the radioactive fallout.

The State’s power to protect the public health in an emergency by destroying property without compensation includes situations “to prevent the spread of conflagration, or the destruction of diseased animals, of rotten fruit, or infected trees where life or health is jeopardized.” Rose v. City of Coalinga, 236 Cal. Rptr. 124, 127-28 (Ct. App. 1987), citing House v. L. A. County Flood Control Dist., 25 Cal.2d 384, 391. This is when the risk of the emergency calls for the needs of the many (public health) to outweigh the needs of the few (private property owners).

If San Francisco was condemned without an emergency and just compensation to the property owners, those owners could have an inverse condemnation claim against the State of California. For example, in a case where a city determined a building was unsafe, declared it a nuisance, and had it destroyed, the court found in favor of the homeowner. The City failed to show the building was an immediate hazard, thus damages were owned to the homeowner. See, Leppo v. City of Petaluma, 20 Cal. App. 3d 711 (1971).

The issue is whether the State could show by a preponderance of the evidence that there was an actual emergency that required the taking of private property. As there were two giant irradiated carcasses in San Francisco (one embedded in a building, the other in San Francisco Bay), fallout from a nuclear explosion mere mile off the coast (that whale watching boat did not get far in under three minutes), the State of California could prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was an actual emergency threatening the lives of everyone in San Francisco.

The legal reality that the State of California could condemn San Francisco does not mean that the people displaced are without hope. The Federal Government would have to provide assistance to those that lost homes, because it would be political suicide after a nuclear explosion to ignore victims in San Francisco. Whether or not those impacted stay in California, or move to different states, could have significant political ramifications. California could lose Congressional seats. If former Californians moved to states such as Arizona or Texas, those states could experience a shift in their political composition, with Red States turning at least Purple if not Blue.

Does it make sense that San Francisco and Las Vegas would be condemned or abandoned after Godzilla 2014? Yes, the health risk from being Ground Zero would justify the condemnation. The same could be said for Boston after King of the Monsters too…

Going After Eco-Terrorists for Child Endangerment

By

Josh Gilliland

-

June 4, 2019

0

The human villains in Godzilla King of the Monsters are environmental terrorists who learn the hard way that nature points out the folly of man. Spoilers ahead, so don’t continue unless you have seen the new Godzilla movie.

Dr. Emma Russell made some problematic parenting choices. In the name of saving the Earth from humanity, she decided to have her Monarch team murdered by terrorists, so they could start awakening Titans across the planet. The Titans would lay waste to millions, while magically refreshing the planet with their radiation. Going big for the mom of the year award, she brought her daughter Madison along for murder and terrorism.

As the Russells lived in both California and Massachusetts (or visited San Francisco at the WRONG time), California law will be applied. Any person who “willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered” has committed child endangerment. The crime can be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, four, or six years. Cal. Penal Code § 273a(a). Moreover, parents have a duty to exercise reasonable care, supervision, and protection over their minor child. Cal. Penal Code § 272(2). Furthermore, anyone who lives in a way that would cause a minor to have a substantial risk of harm as a result of a parent to adequately supervise or protect a child, can be charged with contributing to the delinquency of minor. Cal. Penal Code § 272(a)(1) and Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 300. As will be explained, Emma failed in all of her duties as a parent.

Emma Russell became a terrorist by supplying information, aid, and support to Allen Jonah’s environmentalist death cult fanatics. Terrorism is defined as actions “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct” and further acts relating to nuclear materials, participation in nuclear and weapons of mass destruction threats to the United States, relating to plastic explosives, relating to arson and bombing of Government property risking or causing death, relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility with a dangerous weapon, relating to conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim persons abroad, and providing material support to terrorist organizations. See, 18 U.S.C.S. § 2332b; 18 USCS § 831; 18 USCS § 832; 18 USCS § 842(m) or (n); 18 USCS § 844(f)(2) or (3); 18 USCS § 930(c); 956(a)(1) [18 USCS § 956(a)(1); and 18 USCS § 2339B.

Emma Russell violated all of these provisions with the conspiracy to kill the Monarch personnel at Outpost 61 awaiting Mortha’s hatching and the slaughter at Outpost 32. Moreover, she literally pulled the trigger to detonate the explosives to free Monster Zero from the ice. Furthermore, the use of the ORCA to send Monster Zero on a path of destruction literally had her fingerprints on the device.

All of Emma’s actions had catastrophic effects in Mexico, Washington, DC, Boston, and over a dozen other locations around the planet. There is no way Emma’s acts of terrorism are defensible. These actions also placed her daughter at risk, from gunfights, to explosive devices detonating, to building-sized radioactive Kaiju creating tropical storms from just flapping their wings, to high speed passes sucking humans into the air at high velocity, to wrath of God type destruction around the world. These actions are unmatched in the law when it comes to child safety. There is no question it would be in the best interest of the child to live with her father in Colorado.

There are many case law examples of child endangerment with firearms, and none involve storming secret bases in Antarctica with frozen monsters. One such case focused on an adult who initiated a game of Russian roulette with minor guests that resulted in a fatality. People v. Hansen, 59 Cal. App. 4th 473, 476 (1997). Another is with a roommate firing a weapon at another roommate who had a child in the home. People v. Navarro, 212 Cal. App. 4th 1336, 1344 (2013). The list goes on like the number of titans.

Emma’s child endangerment went beyond the traditional examples from case law to shattering tons of ice with explosives to fire fights with automatic weapons to atomic monsters. “Child endangerment” is an understatement for Emma’s actions with her daughter present.

There is another important factor to consider: Emma was never redeemed for her actions. While she did leave Allen Jonah to rescue her daughter, it was ONLY to rescue her daughter, NOT to stop the Titan rampage across the planet. While Emma’s final actions helped stopped King Ghidorah, she was motivated by self-interest to save her daughter, not altruism to save the Earth. Madison put it the best when she called her mother a monster, because Emma was one.

What Mothra Can Teach Us About Property Rights

By

Josh Gilliland

-

May 30, 2019

0

Ownership is having the exclusive control over property. (See, Bouvier Law Dictionary – Ownership (Owner or Own). In the 1964 Ishirō Honda classic Mothra vs Godzilla, the issue of property ownership was a battle worthy of those Kaiju titans. The film opens with a typhoon washing Mothra’s egg on Infant Island out to sea. Fishermen off Kurada beach recovered the egg. The local villagers claimed the egg was theirs and sold it to Happy Enterprises, who planned to build an amusement park around the egg. Twin fairies known as Shobijin later tell the proprietor of Happy Enterprises the egg belongs to Mothra…who promptly ignored the Shobijin and attempted to buy them.

As a preliminary matter, the real monster in this movie is Happy Enterprises. The cruel entrepreneur missed the memo you can’t buy PEOPLE. The question remains, who is the rightful owner of the egg?

Mothra’s egg was originally on Infant Island. Lost property is property that an “owner no longer possesses because of accident, negligence, or carelessness, and that cannot be located by an ordinary, diligent search.” Black’s Law Dictionary iPad App. Property can be lost by an act of man, act of law, or act of God. (See, Bouvier Law Dictionary – Property, paragraph 9.) The storm washing the egg out to sea is an act of God that caused Mothra to be separated from her egg. Wild animals not in captivity or tamed become the property of those who take or kill it. Forestier v. Johnson 164 Cal. 24 (Cal. Oct. 1, 1912). The local fisherman who retrieved the egg from the sea have a colorable argument that they found a wild animal and claimed it as their own, just as they would from fishing. As such, there is a plausible argument that the sale was valid. However, that analysis is extremely shortsighted in a world with giant moths.

A person who finds lost property under circumstances which give them knowledge of who is the true owner, and they fail to make a reasonable attempt to find the owner, and takes the property as their own, is guilty of theft. Cal. Penal Code § 485. Moreover, if the property owner is unknown and the value of the property is over $100, the finder shall report the information to law enforcement. The report is to include how the property was saved; whether the owner is known; and the finder has not withheld any of the property. Law enforcement is to then notify the owner. Cal Civ Code § 2080.1.

The fishing village sold the egg to Happy Enterprises for 1,224,560 yen. The price was calculated on the cost of regular chicken eggs at 8 yen and that the egg totaled 153,820 chicken eggs. If the cost of a dozen large chicken eggs in Japan is 304 yen, or 25.3 yen per egg, then the modern valuation of the giant egg would be 3,896,773.33 yen or $34,478.77. Considering the potential property damage that could be caused by whatever comes out of a giant egg, this seems like a bad deal to incur liability.

Giant eggs require a giant mother. Taking into account this is a world with monsters that breathe atomic fire, anyone wanting to purchase a monster egg is extremely foolish. They are ignoring the fact that mom might come looking for her kid.

The Shobijin told Jiro Torahata and Kumayama of Happy Enterprises that egg belonged to them and Mothra was the mother. The reaction by Torahata and Kumayama was to capture the Shobijin and later attempt to buy them. Despite being warned that when the egg hatched, the larva would cause property damage looking for food, Happy Enterprises refused to return the egg.

Jiro Torahata and Kumayama created extreme risk for Happy Enterprises. The first is that Torahata and Kumayama refused to return the egg to the rightful owners after learning their identity. This is larceny, the taking of another’s person property. CA Pen. Code, sec. 484. The other is that keepers of wild animals on their property must ensure to their peril that the animals do no damage to others. Hyde v. Utica, 20 N.Y.S.2d 335, 337 (App. Div. 1940). As soon as the egg hatched, Happy Enterprises was strictly liable for any of the damage caused by the larva. It is a fair to say the damages would exceed 1,224,560 yen.