Halloween Podcast Spectacular with Monster Party!

By

-

October 30, 2017

It is time to celebrate Halloween with a special series of spooky podcasts! Jessica and I first analyzed the legal issues in the 1974 Mel Brook’s classic Young Frankenstein. The four members from the wicked podcast Monster Party then individually joined me to share their love, thoughts, and legal questions on The Wolf Man (1941), Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954), The Mummy (1932) and Frankenstein (1931).

A big thank you to Matt Weinhold, Shawn Sheridan, James Gonis, and Larry Strothe from Monster Party for their detailed discussions on these classic films. Each of them could be qualified as an expert witness for their knowledge of these characters. Plus they all have amazing action figures and collectables that would make Forrest Ackerman proud.

The Mummy’s Curse of Liability

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 29, 2017

0

The 1932 Universal Monster Classic The Mummy, tells the story of Imhotep, who was mummified alive for the crime of sacrilege for attempting to resurrect Princess Ankh-es-en-amon with Scroll of Thoth over 3,700 years ago.

Imhotep was awaken from death when an archeologist read the Scroll of Thoth in 1921. After a decade of “living” in the 20^th Century, Imhotep assumed the identity Ardath Bey and directed an archeological team to find the tomb of Ankh-es-en-amon. Following a failed attempt to resurrect Ankh-es-en-amon’s mummified remains failed, Imhotep learned Ankh-es-en-amon had been reincarnated multiple times and was living as Helen Grosvenor. Imhotep planned to kill Helen in a ceremony to bring Ankh-es-en-amon back as a living mummy, her soul purified of the other lives she had lived.

Let’s unwrap a few layers of the Mummy’s legal issues.

Mummifying Imhotep Was Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Imhotep’s attempt to resurrect Ankh-es-en-amon was a capital offense that was punishable by death that extended into the afterlife. Even though Imhotep’s sentence was carried out 3,500 years before the formation of the United States, the death sentence of mummifying a person alive is the exact sort of punishment the Eighth Amendment precludes.

An execution is cruel and unusual punishment if the method presents a “substantial” or “objectively intolerable” risk of serious harm. Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 40 (2008). Other courts have articulated the legal standard for determining whether a form of execution violations the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment as follows:

1) Presents a substantial risk that a prisoner will suffer unnecessary and wanton pain in an execution;

2) Violates the evolving standards of decency that mark a mature society, and

3) Minimizes physical violence and mutilation of the prisoner’s body.

State v. Mata, 275 Neb. 1, 48, 745 N.W.2d 229, 266 (2008)

The United States has a history of allowing executions, starting with hangings at the founding of the country, later firing squads, to finding the most “humane and practical” methods for executions “known to modern science.” Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2731 (2015). These methods have included electrocution, because it was thought to be less painful and more humane than hanging, to the gas chamber, to lethal injection. Id.

Mummifying Imhotep alive would pose an “objectively intolerable” risk of serious harm. First off, Imhotep was wrapped alive and sealed in a totally dark sarcophagus to die, either from starvation or the lack of air. It does not take an archeologist who can read hieroglyphics to see that Imhotep would suffer unnecessary and wanton pain in an execution by suffocating to death in darkness. Furthermore, the Pharaoh had the slaves who buried Imhotep killed, followed by the soldiers who killed the slaves also killed. This double digit body count would go against the evolving standards of decency that mark a mature society, where executing one man requires several dozen more to also die for national security. Finally, leaving Imhotep in total darkness to either starve or suffocate does not limit the physical violence he suffered in death.

Based on the above, “death by mummification,” would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Can Ankh-es-en-amon Be Resurrected under the Free Exercise Clause?

Imhotep illegally entered the Cairo Museum to perform a religious ceremony with the Scroll of Thoth in an attempt to resurrect Ankh-es-en-amon’s mummified remains. Imhotep murdered a guard who discovered him during the ceremony.

If this had been in the United States, the “Free Exercise Clause” under the First Amendment gives people the right to “believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires.” Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87, 103 (1st Cir. 2008). However, it is not a general protection of religion or religious belief. Id.

If the Free Exercise Clause is raised as a defense to a tort (in this case, trespassing), the issue is whether the defendant’s conduct was religious. Wisconsin v. Yoder, S. Ct. 1526, 1533-34 (1972). Arguably reading the Scroll of Thoth in an attempt to resurrect Ankh-es-en-amon would be a form of praying. However, the Free Exercise Clause does not shield clergy from wrongdoing or allow them to ignore laws of general applicability. See, Sanders v. Casa View Baptist Church, 898 F. Supp. 1169, 1174 (N.D. Tex. 1995). This would include trespassing and there is no religious exception to committing murder.

Praying to bring Ankh-es-en-amon back to life arguably would be protected conduct, however, that free exercise ends with intentional torts and crimes.

Desecration of a Corpse and Attempted Murder

Imhotep’s plan to kill Helen Grosvenor in order to bring Ankh-es-en-amon back as a living mummy has multiple legal problems. The first was burning Ankh-es-en-amon’s mummy, because that was desecration of a corpse. Many states recognize there is a tort for abuse or mishandling of a dead body. See, Frys v. City of Cleveland, 107 Ohio App. 3d 281, 284, (1995). The wrinkle with Ankh-es-en-amon’s mummy was it was not in its tomb, but in its sarcophagus on display at the Cairo Museum. That being said, burning the body still required it being removed from its resting place and destroyed.

Imhotep planned to murder Helen Grosvenor in order to make her a living mummy. There is no exception to murder in order to cleanse a reincarnated soul of other past lives. This would be a crime…. provided a 3,700 year old living mummy could be incarcerated on this plane of existence.

Mummy Dearest

Imhotep is a cold and calculated killer, not just because he is a reanimated corpse. Imhotep acted with a specific intent to manipulate others for his ultimate goal of brining Ankh-es-en-amon back from the dead. The problem for Imhotep is he killed at least two people, enslaved another, committed fraud in representing who he was to the British expedition, destroyed historic artifacts of cultural significance at the Cairo Museum, and attempted to murder Helen Grosvenor. There is no legal justification for these crimes, however, the Egyptian Goddess Isis claimed jurisdiction of Imhotep’s wrongful conduct.

Lycanthropy isn’t the Wolf Man’s Only Problem

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 26, 2017

1

The 1941 Universal Classic The Wolf Man tells the tragic story of Larry Talbot, who is the heir to the Talbot Estate, suffers from Lycanthropy, and is a peeping tom. For every man who is pure of heart and says his prayers at night, he can still be prosecuted when the autumn moon is bright.

Don’t Look at People in Windows with Telescopes

Larry Talbot discovered his love interest Gwen Conliffee in a way normal only for a horror movie: with a telescope watching her put on earrings. Larry then ventured to Gwen’s haberdashery for a mix of stalking and shopping in the hopes of getting a date with Gwen. This is the creepiest scene in the movie.

Watching another person with a telescope through a window would be the classic definition of being a “peeping tom.” Most states specifically prohibit this conduct, some even naming the laws “Peeping Tom” statues.

Georgia has a traditional legal definition of “Peeping Tom”: a person who peeps through windows or doors, or other like places, on or about the premises of another for the purpose of spying upon or invading the privacy of the persons spied upon and the doing of any other acts of a similar nature which invade the privacy of such persons. Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-61(b).

Louisiana’s definition of “Peeping Tom,” includes drones, which generally means this was a problem the legislature had to respond to with a new law: “[O]ne who peeps through windows or doors, or other like places, situated on or about the premises of another or uses an unmanned aircraft system for the purpose of spying upon or invading the privacy of persons spied upon without the consent of the persons spied upon. It is not a necessary element of this offense that the “Peeping Tom” be upon the premises of the person being spied upon.” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:284.

The great state of Mississippi is even more specific with its law:

(1) (a) Any person who enters upon real property, whether the original entry is legal or not, and thereafter pries or peeps through a window or other opening in a dwelling or other building structure for the lewd, licentious and indecent purpose of spying upon the occupants thereof, shall be guilty of a felonious trespass.

(b) Any person who looks through a window, hole or opening, or otherwise views by means of any instrumentality, including, but not limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, drones, camera, motion-picture camera, camcorder or mobile phone, into the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, spa, massage room or therapy room or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside and without the consent or knowledge of every person present, for the lewd, licentious and indecent purpose of spying upon the occupant or occupants thereof, shall be guilty of a felony.

Miss. Code Ann. § 97-29-61.

California does not use the phrase “Peeping Tom,” but does have laws designed to protect a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy:

A person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion picture camera, camcorder, or mobile phone, the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside. This subdivision does not apply to those areas of a private business used to count currency or other negotiable instruments.

Cal. Penal Code § 647(j)(1).

Larry Talbot might not have originally intended to be a Peeping Tom, but he certainly became one when he spied on Gwen Conliffee. Talbot could be prosecuted for invading on Gwen’s privacy by watching her with his high powered telescope. Moreover, if Larry had not sought out Gwen for a date, Bela the Werewolf would have never bitten Larry.

Duty to Warn Future Victims of Werewolf Attacks

Humans suffering from the curse of the werewolf can see a pentagram on the palm of their next victim. This gives the human knowledge of who will be harmed when they next turn into a werewolf.

The California Supreme Court has held in cases with inmates being released, that there is no duty to warn the public of violent inmates where the inmate has made nonspecific threats of harm directed at nonspecific victims. Thompson v. Cty. of Alameda, 27 Cal. 3d 741, 754 (1980). As such, this means there has to be a specific threat against a specific person in order for there to be a duty to warn.

The human suffering from the curse of the werewolf has specific knowledge of who will be harmed by the werewolf with the specific harm of death. This knowledge would put someone like Larry Talbot in a special relationship with a future victim, because Larry would need to control the actions of the wolf in order to prevent harm, and with direct knowledge of the foreseeable victim of the wolf’s conduct. See, generally, Ewing v. Northridge Hosp. Med. Ctr., 120 Cal. App. 4th 1289, 1297, (2004), for a discussion of Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 17 Cal. 3d 425 (1976).

Larry Talbot had direct knowledge that Gwen was going to be his next victim. As such, Larry owed Gwen a duty to warn her that the wolf was going to kill her. Moreover, Larry could have taken preventative measures to protect Gwen from the wolf, such as changing himself up, locking himself in a cell, or some other means to keep the wolf from leaving the Talbot Estate.

Insanity Defense for Unknown Victims

Larry Talbot could argue that he was not responsible for deaths caused by the Wolf Man, because he was not in control of his actions because he turned into a wolf.

The insanity defense applies when a defendant 1) had a mental disease when they committed a crime; and 2) they did not understand the nature and quality of their actions or understand that the act was legally wrong. See, 2007-3400 CALCRIM Archive 3450 (2017).

Larry Talbot clearly had the medical condition of Lycanthropy, where he looked and behaved like a wild animal. Talbot’s attorneys with expert witnesses could prove 1) Talbot had a mental disease when he killed people; and 2) Talbot did not understand the wrongfulness of his actions.

The problem for Larry Talbot is he knew he turned into the Wolf Man. Talbot at first was in denial, refused the amulet from gypsy that would have protected him, and took no preventative measures to imprison the wolf. While there is a clear argument for the insanity defense, it ignores the fact Talbot knew he would transform into a killing machine.

Bad Moon Rising

Larry Talbot is a tragic character who turns into a beast after trying to save Jenny Williams from Bela the Werewolf. That being said, Larry Talbot should not have invaded the privacy of Gwen Conliffee. The chain of events that followed resulted in Larry’s own father having to kill him, after Larry’s final transformation into a wolf. If Larry had respected the privacy rights of others, he would have never fallen to the Cruse of the Werewolf.

Diving into the Legal Depths with The Creature from the Black Lagoon

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 22, 2017

0

The Universal Classic Creature from the Black Lagoon starts as an archeological expedition, which evolved into hunting an endangered species in the Amazon for importation to a marine institute in the United States. It’s time to swim into the murky legal issues with Dr. Mark Williams’ goal to capture the Creature.

Importation of Endangered Species

The Creature was possibly the last of its kind from the Devonian Era. Fossilized remained were found of another “creature,” which was the genesis of the expedition into the Amazon. Upon first sighting the Creature, Dr. Mark Williams shot a speargun at the animal. Dr. Williams made clear his goal was to capture the Creature for his aquarium.

Dr. William’s objective to bring the Creature to the United States would violate the prohibition of importing 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). Moreover, 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). Furthermore, it is unlawful to import any wildlife taken in violation of any State or foreign law. 16 U.S.C.S. § 3372(a)(2)(A).

Federal and State law could view the Creature as a dangerous wild animal, like an alligator or gorilla. Moreover, the Secretary of the Interior could find the Creature is “injurious to human beings,” since the Creature killed three people without provocation (which is very different than the situation in Frankenstein).

There is a strong argument that the Creature is an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. A species is “endangered” if it is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” 16 U.S. CODE § 1532(6). 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.” Id. § 1532(20); Conservation Force, Inc. v. Jewell, 733 F.3d 1200, 1202 (D.C. Cir. 2013). A species is considered “endangered” because of “natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.” 16 USCS § 1533(a)(1)(E).

The Creature appeared to live alone, with no evidence of any other living members of the species. The only evidence of another animal were fossilized remains, so unless the Creature reproduces asexually, it could be the last of its kind. The Rita expedition into the Creature’s range introduced Rotenone into the Black Lagoon and armed hunting parties with spearguns and rifles. As such, the Creature was under threat of extinction from the lack of the opportunity to reproduced and humans hunting the Creature.

Williams’ actions were to kill and then capture the Creature for profit. United States law would not permit the Creature to be brought into the United States. Moreover, Brazil also would have its own national interest to protect the Creature from being exported to the United States as a museum exhibit.

Duties as a Common Carrier

The Creature stalked Kay Lawrence during her solo swim in the Black Lagoon. As a passenger on the Rita, Captain Lucas owed Kay a duty to protect her from “from ill treatment from other passengers, intruders or employees.” White v. Norfolk & S. R. Co., 115 N.C. 631, 636-37, 20 S.E. 191, 192 (1894).

The Creature boarding the Rita would classify the Creature as an “intruder.” Captain Lucas owed all of the passengers onboard the Rita a duty to protect them from harm. Maintaining a watch for the Creature, with appropriate counter-measures, would have been reasonable to protect the passengers onboard Rita. Immediately leaving the Black Lagoon would have been a wise course of action.

Dr. Edwin Thompson was injured by the Creature and was hospitalized in a bunk below decks. The Creature was able to access the injured Thompson through an open porthole. Ensuring portholes were closed would have been an appropriate response to knowing there was an undiscovered lethal gill-man harassing the passengers onboard the Rita.

Just Leave Him Alone

The Creature was an endangered species from an era time forgot. Not entering the Creature’s habitat would be the best course of action, for the safety of both human beings and the Creature himself. This is best evidenced by Dr. Mark Williams, who behaved like someone who tried to ride a bear at a National Park. The best way to avoid the loss of life is to leave the bear alone. The same is true for Devonian Creatures in lagoons.

Justice for Frankenstein’s Monster

By

Josh Gilliland

-

October 13, 2017

2

The real monsters in the 1931 Universal classic Frankenstein are the twisted assistant Fritz who whipped the Monster and the angry lynch mob that burned the Monster alive. This was nothing but a revenge killing for the accidental death of Little Maria, who was negligently left alone by her father. At its core, the classic film is a reanimated Pygmalion, where torturing a person turns him into a killer. Moreover, calling someone a “monster” can turn him or her into one. The question remains, what justice was there for Dr. Frankenstein’s Monster?

Henry Frankenstein brought the Monster to life, cobbled together from stolen bodies and an abnormal brain. The Monster first killed Fritz, who had tortured the Monster with fire and a whip. The next victim was Dr. Waldman, who drugged the Monster in self-defense, and was going to perform a dissection of the still living Monster to kill him. The final victim was Maria, a little girl who showed the Monster kindness. During a game where Maria and the Monster each threw flowers into the water to watch them float, the Monster threw Maria into the water as part of the game. Maria drowned and the Monster was horrified at the result of his actions.

The Monster acted in self-defense against the brutal torture by Fritz. Fritz antagonized the Monster with a torch and a whip. A reasonable person could subjectively believe their life was in danger if fire is shoved in their face. The Monster was tormented and acted to protect himself from fatal injury.

The Monster’s mental capacity was that of a child. It is highly possible the Monster did not understand the concept of death when he killed Fritz, thus did not fully appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. The Monster clearly wanted the torture to stop and might not have understood he had killed Fritz, given the Monster attempted to keep Dr. Frankenstein and Dr. Waldman away from the hanging corpse.

Dr. Waldman was going to dissect the Monster in order to kill him. The Monster might not have understood the Doctor’s exact actions, but the motive was clear: kill the Monster. The Monster again acted in self-defense to preserve his own life.

Maria’s death was a reckless homicide. The Monster did not know throwing her into the water could result in her death, but a jury could find his actions were in the reckless disregard for her safety.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Cal. Penal Code § 187. The United States Supreme Court has held that children are constitutionally different from adults for the purposes of sentencing, because children have diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 471, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2464 (2012) [citations omitted]. Children are still developing their character and are more vulnerable to negative influences. Id.

The same can be said of Frankenstein’s Monster. The “Monster” was only days old. To borrow from Dr. Frankenstein, the Monster had not yet lived. The Monster did not understand the world and needed to be taught how to live. This required giving him what any child needs, love, understanding, and compassion. The “Monster” was given none of those things, instead tormented by fire and ordered destroyed.

The real monsters in Frankenstein are the lynch mob that burned the Monster alive. Maria’s father carrying her corpse into town only inflamed rage. Law enforcement is supposed to uphold the public good, not fan the fires of revenge. The Burgermeister had no interest in following probable cause or affording the Monster the right to counsel or a fair trial. The soul purpose was to go out to kill the Monster to avenge the death of Maria. Only right can make right, which would have required a trial, so a person with limited mental capacity was not burned alive. The “justice” issued to the Monster was the equivalent of lynch mob hunting a four-year old with torches.

Anyone accused of a crime is entitled to due process of law. This even includes “monsters.” Civil societies do not executed children or those with diminished mental capacity. Those who decide they are the judge, jury, and executioner to exact death, are the real monsters in the world.

Could a Vulcan Adopt a Human Child?

By

Josh Gilliland

-

September 25, 2017

0

Star Trek Discovery boldly went where Star Trek has only once gone before: interspecies adoption. Ambassador Savek was the legal guardian of Lieutenant Commander Michael Burnham. Would a court appoint a Vulcan to be the parent of a human child?

As a preliminary matter, an adult can adopt a minor who is not married. Cal. Fam. Code § 8600. Burnham’s parents were killed in a Klingon terror raid, thus making her an orphan as a child. Furthermore, a prospective adoptive parent cannot be discriminated against because of race, color, or national origin of the parent or child. See, Cal. Fam. Code § 8708. As such, a court prohibiting Savek from adopting Burnham would be discrimination based upon race and national origin because he was Vulcan.

The issue is raising a human child on Vulcan would be on whether it was in the best interest of the child. Courts will examine adoption petitioners in person and must be satisfied that the child’s best interests will be promoted by the adoption. Cal. Fam. Code § 8612(a) and (c). Moreover, the prospective adoptive parents must state in an agreement that the child will be treated as the adoptive parent’s lawful child. Cal. Fam. Code § 8612(b).

A court would have no problem finding that Ambassador Savek had the financial means, proper home, and ability to raise Burnham as an adopted daughter. However, any home with a Sehlat should raise concerns for having an animal with six inch fangs as a pet. Furthermore, a home with a the lack of any emotional support would arguably go against placing a human child with the trauma of her parents’ death in a Vulcan home. However, as Savek was married to the human Amanda, a court could find that Burnham would have a home that provided a strong academic setting and emotional support for a healthy upbringing. Vulcan hopefully had counseling professionals who could help Burnham with the trauma of a terror attack.

If that is what a court found, it arguably did not happen. Burnhman’s showed extremely little humanity when Savek brought her to the USS Shenzhou. It appears Amanda had a non-existent impact on Burnham’s personal development. Furthermore, Savek’s intent with Burnham serving onboard the Shenzhou was to re-introduce her to humans. After seven years on a Federation starship, Burnhman became unstable under threat from Klingons, assaulted her captain, and attempted a mutiny. While Savek adopting Burnham was legal, it arguably was not in Burnham’s best interests, as her emotional response to a death resulted in her abandoning her own plan to capture the Klingon T’Kuvma and instead kill him. A non-Vulcan upbringing could have given Burnham the emotional tools necessary to not start a protracted war because of a revenge killing.

Product Liability Litigation for Defective Stormtrooper Armor

By

Josh Gilliland

-

September 5, 2017

1

The Empire’s Stormtroopers are emissaries of fear to subjugate civilian populations. However, Stormtrooper armor appears to have multiple fatal flaws for surviving blunt force trauma from melee weapons, arrows, and rocks.

Attackers with sticks incapacitated Stormtroopers on Jedha and Endor with blows to the head. Stromtrooper armor also was ineffective against primitive arrows.

Stromtrooper associations could sue the manufactures of body armor for defective design and possibly breach of warranty and fraud. In cases where fiber was sold to weaving companies who manufactured ballistic fabric, the ultimate manufactures of bullet proof vests were sued for body armor that had a 58% failure rate against bullets. See, First Choice Armor & Equip., Inc. v. Toyobo Am., Inc., 839 F. Supp. 2d 407 (D. Mass. 2012). Numerous police officer associations and local governments sued for design defect, breach of warrant, and fraud. See, S. States Police Benevolent Ass’n v. First Choice Armor & Equip., Inc., 241 F.R.D. 85 (D. Mass. 2007).

Imperial body armor appears in multiple divisions, with the main Stromtroopers wearing white armor. There are other armors that are similar in design, but with different colors for specialty of mission or deployment. These include, but are not limited to, the Death Troopers assigned to Director Krennic and Grand Admiral Thrawn; Scarif Stromtroopers; Cold Assault Stromtroopers seen at the Battle of Hoth; and Scout Troopers, seen at the Battle of Endor.

The Stormtroopers who were subdued with melee weapons on Jedha and Endor were the main line serving Stormtroopers. Scout Troopers were also pacified on Endor by Ewoks.

Stormtroopers suing for defective body armor would need to prove: that the armor did not perform as expected when used as intended; that the Stormtroopers were harmed; and the failure of the body armor to perform was a substantial factor in causing the Stormtroopers harm.

Head Injuries

Stormtroopers on Jedha and Scarif suffered head injuries with the walking stick used by Chirrut Imwe as a blunt force weapon. Stromtroopers and Scout Troopers on Endor also suffered head injuries from predatory Ewoks with rock axes.

If Stormtrooper helmets were supposed to prevent concussions from head injuries, the helmets clearly failed. These failures to protect Troopers from concussions were moments that ultimately resulted in the destruction of TWO Death Stars. If Imwe had not rescued Jyn Erso and Cassian Andor, the original Death Star plans would have never been stolen and provided to Rebels. Moreover, if carnivorous Ewoks with primitive axes had not overrun Stormtroopers on Endor, the Empire itself would not have fallen.

The issue on manufacturer liability would be whether Stormtrooper helmets were supposed to protect the wearer’s head from blunt force trauma. If the helmets were for communications, air filtration, and data management, then the intended use of the helmets were not for protection from concussive injuries. That being said, the armor is supposed to protect Stormtroopers from projectile weapons. Why does it fail when the wearer is hit with a stick?

Different Versions of Armor

The armor worn by Death Troopers, Scarif Stromtroopers, and Hovertank Pilots, all have similar armor that appears different in color and helmet design. Cold Assault Stromtrooper armor is the most dissimilar to other Stormtrooper armor.

There is no evidence of any of these armors failing to protect Troopers from blunt force trauma from melee weapons. However, these Troopers could sue the armor manufacturer under specific conditions. If same ballistic fabric and armor plating was used in all Imperial body armor, the Stormtroopers severing in different deployments could join in a potential class action. Additionally, if the Imperial armor manufacturer had the same warranty printed on each type of armor, then all could join in a prospective class action.

The Doctrine of Fear

The Empire’s concept of governance was through fear. Whether it was fear of the Emperor, fear of Darth Vader force choking an admiral, or fear from destroying civilian targets, the Empire ruled by terrifying others. Moreover, Imperials showed little regard for their own service members. Governor Tarkin ordered the destruction of the base on Scarif, instead of sending Stromtroopers and Tie Fighters to destroy the Alliance Fleet and ground forces. Given the low level regard for life, it is highly likely that Stormtrooper armor was not designed to protect the lives of Troopers, but to instill fear in the civilian population.