Strict Liability for a Rancor Rampage

May 4, 2022

Boba Fett’s pet rancor turned the Battle of Mos Espa against the Pykes, however, the “little” guy got loose from Boba Fett. Would the Mighty Daimyo be financially on the hook for all the property damage?

The short answer is “yes,” dependent on any sovereign immunity defenses for a crime lord. As a baseline, “One who keeps wild animals on his premises must see to it at his peril that they do no damage to others.” Hyde v. Utica, 20 N.Y.S.2d 335, 337 (App. Div. 1940). Moreover, “[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, 205 P.2d 671 (1949).

As seen in the episode, “In the Name of Honor,” Boba Fett brought his unnamed rancor to assist in the battle with the Pykes. For the sake of humanizing the creature, he will be referred to as “Harryhausen.” The emotionally complex Harryhausen would be considered a wild animal, because a “wild animal” is a creature not normally domesticated, such a pet kept in a home for pleasure rather than commercial purposes. See, Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2116 and Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 50466. Moreover, “Wild animals” do not cease to be “wildlife simply because they or their progeny are no longer found in the wild.” U.S. v. Condict, No. CR-05-004-SPS, at *6 (E.D. Okla. June 27, 2006), citing 16 U.S.C. § 3371(a).

There is an argument that Harryhausen is domesticated, because Boba Fett rode him to Mos Espa from the Palace. Horses are considered domestic animals. Sea Horse Ranch, Inc. v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.App.4th 446, 460 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). However, this argument might be as effective as claiming an Orca who does tricks is “domesticated.”

While it is clear that Harryhausen might be a snuggly beast who likes to cuddle, he also eats Pykes whole. Even if he were considered domesticated, Harryhausen would be in the inherently dangerous category, such as some breeds of dogs. In such a situation, the test for strict liability is the “harm done by a domestic animal with known vicious or dangerous propensities abnormal to its class.” Drake v. Dean, 15 Cal.App.4th 915, 921 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).

It is common knowledge that rancors can make smaller lifeforms bite sized snacks. For Boba Fett, the fact Harryhausen went on a rampage destroying at least one speeder and smashed several buildings is grounds for him to pay out credits for any property damage.

Could Baba Fett get insurance to cover damages by Harryhausen? Probably not, but most insurance carriers in Star Wars likely went insolvent after the Clone Wars.

WonderCon 2022 Panel Recordings

Josh Gilliland

March 21, 2022

We had a blast at WonderCon 2022. It was extremely healing to see some friends who I had not seen in person since 2019. We had a great time discussing the legal issues in Peacemaker and Star Trek in our two panels.

Law of Peacemaker

Law of Star Trek

Desecration of a Corpse in Ultraman

Josh Gilliland

March 6, 2022

The original Ultraman series introduced “The Monster Graveyard,” in the episode of the same name in 1967 (season 1, episode 35). The premise is that there is a realm in space where the souls of Kaiju defeated by any of the Ultra Warriors go for their eternal rest. This rest is hard earned, as many of the Kaiju are mutilated by Ultraman in battle.

The story followed a test flight of a rocket that entered the Monster Graveyard and returned to Earth with the soul of the Kaiju named Seabozu. This raises the issue, did the rocket entering the graveyard, colliding with Seabozu, and bringing his soul back to Earth, amount to desecration of a corpse?

This is problematic, since corpses do not cry out in agony if disturbed [recognizing that every haunted house story might beg to differ].

The definition of desecration of a corpse varies across the United States and international law. International Humanitarian Law follows the long held rule that “Each party to the conflict must take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled. Mutilation of dead bodies is prohibited.” See, Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead. This is based off many treaties, including the 1907 Hague Convention (X).

State law uses different descriptions, but the theme is the same: leave dead bodies alone. For example, Mississippi law states:

Every person who shall knowingly and willfully dig up, except as otherwise provided by law, obliterate, or in any way desecrate any cemetery where human dead are interred, or cause through word, deed or action the same to happen, shall upon conviction be imprisoned for not more than one (1) year in the county jail or fined not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or both, in the discretion of the court. In addition to any penalties that the court is otherwise authorized to impose the court may, in its discretion, order such restitution as it deems appropriate.

Miss. Code § 97-29-25(1)(a).

Texas has similar prohibitions, stating that “abuse of a corpse” is “intentionally or knowingly disinters, disturbs, removes, dissects, in whole or in part, carries away, or treats in a seriously offensive manner a human corpse.” TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. Sec. 42.10(a)(1) (Vernon 1989). Mclain v. State, 831 S.W.2d 815, 818 (Tex. App. 1992).

Alabama also follows these legal protections with their extensively defined law, which states:

Any person who willfully or maliciously injures, defaces, removes, or destroys any tomb, monument, gravestone, burial mound, earthen or shell monument containing human skeletal remains or associated burial artifacts, or other structure or thing placed or designed for a memorial of the dead, or any fence, railing, curb, or any enclosure for the protection or ornamentation of any tomb, monument, gravestone, burial mound, earthen or shell monument containing human skeletal remains or associated burial artifacts, or other structure before mentioned, or for any enclosure for the burial of the dead, or any person who willfully and wrongfully or maliciously destroys, removes, cuts, breaks, or injures any tree, shrub, plant, flower, decoration, or other real or personal property within any cemetery or graveyard shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Ala. Code § 13A-7-23.1(a)

Was Seabozu removed from his grave? Yes. There is no doubt his remains were distributed. However, that does not mean the space agency is legally responsible, because all of the state legal examples require that the desecration be done knowingly. The scientists had no knowledge of the “Monster Graveyard,” so there was no intent to bring Seabozu back to Earth. Moreover, that would be a strange project for any government or private actor to fund. Furthermore, even if the rocket launch was done recklessly, that is not the standard, because even that presumes there would be knowledge of a foreseeable risk of hitting the soul of a Kaiju. Furthermore, all of the laws at issue require the corpse to be that of a human being, so there is a Kaiju size technicality for applicability.

The only cause for possible legal jeopardy comes in the form of a war crime for mutilating a body or have a human requirement. There is no stated intent requirement, but mutilations do not happen by accident. Someone is taking an affirmative act to mutilate a corpse.

Even considering all of the above, the Science Patrol and the space agency were right to return Seabozu back to the Monster Graveyard. This episode was one of the few times where a Kaiju was seen as suffering and the Science Special Search Party sought to right the wrong done to the spirit.

Book of Boba Fett Video and Podcast Series

Josh Gilliland

January 17, 2022

The Book of Boba Fett is a cacophony of legal issues with crime lords, political graft, extortion, and all the joy of Star Wars. Below is our weekly analysis of each episode.

Chapter 1: Stranger in a Strange Land

Chapter 2: The Tribes of Tatooine

Chapter 3: The Streets of Mos Espa

Chapter 4: The Gathering Storm

Chapter 5: The Return of the Mandalorian

Chapter 6: “From the Desert Comes a Stranger”

Chapter 7: “In the Name of Honor”

Prosecuting Jawas for Robbery and Battery of Boba Fett

Josh Gilliland

January 4, 2022

Boba Fett escaped the Sarlacc Pit only to have his armor stripped from his body by Jawas..one of whom smashed an ionization blaster butt against Boba’s face.

There is a lot of things with the Jawas’ actions.

The Jawas Committed Robbery

If the sands of Tatooine had laws similar to California, the elements of robbery are easily met for the vexus Jawas. Robbery is defined as follows:

“Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.”

Cal. Pen. Code § 211.

Boba Fett was injured with acid burns after being in the Sarlacc’s stomach. In his weakened state, Jawas discovered him and began removing his body armor. One of them struck him when he resisted. The body armor was Boba Fett’s personal property that was literally on his body. The Jawas took it from him against his will. Smashing Boba Fett’s face with a rifle butt is the textbook definition of “force.” All the elements are met for convicting the Jawas of robbery.

The Jawas Committed Battery of Boba Fett

Battery is “any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” Cal. Pen. Code § 242. The Jawa who struck Boba Fest with the ionization blaster butt committed a willful and unlawful use of violence upon Boba Fett.

There is the legal maxim that members of a criminal conspiracy are liable for each act of the conspiracy if it was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. In re Thompson, B270387, at *8-9 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 5, 2017).

The Jawas had a criminal conspiracy to take Boba Fett’s armor from his person. The Jawa who struck Boba Fett did so in furtherance of taking his armor. As taking his armor was the goal of the conspiracy, all the Jawas in the conspiracy would be liable for the battery.

Attempted Murder of Boba Fett

The Jawas robbers and battered Boba Fett before leaving him to die in the desert. Was that enough to convict them of attempted murder?

Murder is the “unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” Cal. Pen. Code § 187(a). First Degree Murder includes a murder that was committed in the perpetration of a robbery. Cal. Pen. Code § 189(a). A person can be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime. Cal. Pen. Code § 663.

If Boba Fett had died in the sand after being robbed and battered by Jawas, they could be charged with First Degree Murder. However, the fact he survived means there was not a death while being robbed. As such, the elements to elevate a robbery to murder are not met. Consider a case from Louisiana, which is not the Dagobah of the United States, but does offer helpful analysis:

A specific intent to kill is an essential element of the crime of attempted second degree murder. A specific intent to inflict great bodily harm is sufficient to find a defendant guilty of murder if the victim dies, but is not sufficient to find him guilty of the attempt if the victim survives. In such a case, the defendant’s intent to inflict great bodily harm would be sufficient only to find him guilty of a battery .

State v. Latiolais, 453 So. 2d 1266, 1268-69 (La. Ct. App. 1984), citing State v. Butler,322 So.2d 189 (La. 1975).

What was the specific intent of the Jawa? If the intent was only to cause harm, the most he could be charged with is battery. However, a prosecutor could argue the intent was to kill based on the circumstances of the encounter: Boba Fett was found severely injured; he offered resistance to having his armor taken from him; he was struck in the face, and then left to freeze in the night or be cooked under the twin suns of Tatooine.

That sounds like an intent to kill.

Bob Cratchit’s Right to Paid Time Off in a A Christmas Carol

Josh Gilliland

December 24, 2021

George C. Scott’s portrayal of Ebenezer Scrooge had a dimension to the character that is sometimes missed: He did not like giving paid time off for legal holidays. After Bob Cratchit asked for Christmas Day off, Scrooge retorted with the following:

“It is not convenient. And it it’s not fair. If I were to hold back half a crown from your pay for it, you’d think yourself ill-used, I’ll be bound. But you don’t think me ill-used when I pay for a day’s wages for no work.”

“Poor excuse for picking a man’s pocket every 25th of December.”

That….really misses the point of having holidays. While there are differences between employees paid hourly (non-exempt employees) vs salary (exempt employees), countries have many recognized holidays. In the United States, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure define a “legal holiday” as follows:

(A) the day set aside by statute for observing New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birthday, Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans’ Day, Thanksgiving Day, or Christmas Day;

(B) any day declared a holiday by the President or Congress; and

(C) for periods that are measured after an event, any other day declared a holiday by the state where the district court is located.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6.

Business, Federal, State, and Local Governments, have long recognized Christmas Day as a holiday with paid time off. In a case where a plaintiff claimed her First Amendment Free Exercise rights were violated by a county that had a facially neutral policy of designating Christmas as a paid legal holiday. Edelstein v. Stephens, No. 1:17-cv-305, at *12-13 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 16, 2018). The Court found the plaintiff had not shown any facts of discriminatory conduct, as the law did not discriminate against a particular religion or set of religious beliefs. Id.

Is Scrooge missing the point of the holidays? Where is the peace, love and goodwill towards fellow people? If Scrooge consults with his general counsel, is he on solid legal footing to give his employee a paid day off during a holiday such as Christmas?

Yes, actually, if we look at California state law. According to the California Department of Industrial Relations, California law does not require that an employer provide its employees with paid holiday, that it close its business on any holiday, or that employees be given the day off for any particular holiday.

From the California Labor Commissioner’s Website:

There is nothing in state law that mandates that an employer must close its business on any particular day, if at all. It is up to your employer to select which days, if any, it chooses to be open and closed for business, and if your employer is open on a holiday and schedules you to work that day, there is nothing in the law that obligates your employer to pay you anything but your regular pay and any overtime premium for all overtime hours worked.

https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_holidays.htm

So Bob Cratchit may be out of luck under California law. The law will not stop Scrooge. Tiny Tim will have a sad Christmas, doom and gloom will rule the day, and we may even fall into the calamity contemplated by Ghostbusters of 10 years of darkness and Cats and Dogs living together.

However, all may not be lost. There may be other possibilities, for example many companies still recognize the value in giving employees time off during the holidays. It can improve morale, help with team building, and also encourage loyalty to the company. So even if Scrooge can legally refuse to give his employees paid time off during the holidays, it may still be a wise decision for him to do so. There is also the reality of business competition: companies that refuse to give their employees paid time off during the holidays may soon find themselves hard pressed to retain workers when some competing companies do offer paid holiday time off.

Scrooge’s general counsel may be well advised to tell him: “yes sir, you can refuse to give any paid time off during the holidays, but . . . you may also be visited by a fourth ghost during your life changing experience tonight, the ghost of employees past, or the ghost of employment lawyers strongly urging you to adopt more friendly policies your your employees.”

Perhaps Tiny Tim may yet have a happy holiday.

Happy Holidays to all.

Peter Parker vs The Daily Bugle for Defamation

Josh Gilliland

December 20, 2021

Spider-Man Far From ends, and Spider-Man No Way Home begins with, news broadcaster J. Jonah Jameson of the Daily Bugle playing a video that depicted Spider-Man ordering a drone attack in London, being responsible for Mysterio’s death, AND then revealed that Peter Parker is Spider-Man.

Peter needs a very good lawyer to sue the Daily Bugle and J. Jonah Jameson.

New York Defamation Law

Defamation is a “false statement about a person that ‘tends to expose the p[erson] to public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace, or induce an evil opinion of him [or her] in the minds of right-thinking persons, and to deprive him [or her] of their friendly intercourse in society,'” Ava v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 64 A.D.3d 407, 411-12 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009), citing Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart Winston, 42 NY2d 369, 379, cert denied 434 US 969; see Golub v Enquirer/Star Group, 89 NY2d 1074).

Defamation can be spoken (slander) or written (libel). Libel has two forms:

Libel per se: where the defamatory statement appears on the face of the communication; and

Libel per quod: where no defamatory statement is present on the face of the communication but a defamatory import arises through reference to facts extrinsic to the communication

Ava, at *411-12, referencing 2 NY PJI2d 3:23, at 197, 3:24, at 275; see also Hinsdale v Orange County Pubis., 17 NY2d 284; Cole Fisher Rogow, Inc. v Carl Ally, Inc., 29 AD2d 423, 426 [1968, Stevens, J.], affd 25 NY2d 943).

A statement is defamatory on its face if it “impute the commission of a serious crime . . . or if they affect the plaintiff in his trade, occupation, or profession…” Oluwo v. Hallum, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 51761 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007), citing Sterling Doubleday Enterprises, L.P. v Marro, 238 AD2d 502, 503; Warlock Enterprises v City Center Assocs., 204 AD2d 438, 438.

New York law on libel per se rule on damages and news media organizations require that “damage may not be presumed in the absence of Times malice but must be proved,” which means that a plaintiff does not need to establish either actual malice or special damages before they may recover. Hogan v. Herald Company, 84 A.D.2d 470, 480-81 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982).

Accusing Peter Parker of Murder and Terrorist Attack

J. Jonah Jameson played an edited video from London that appeared to show Spider-Man ordering a drone attack with the command “execute them all.” The video purported to show Spider-Man being responsible for Mysterio’s death. The video was from an “anonymous” source. At no point in the video is Spider-Man’s face visible. Jameson states the video as “conclusive proof” that Spider-Man was responsible for the “murder of Mysterio.”

Jameson’s use of the video implies Spider-Man (and thus Peter Parker) committed two series crimes: a terrorist attack with drones and murder.

The claim that video was “conclusive proof” of Spider-Man committing murder is defamation, because it outright accused him of a crime. The video also imputes Spider-Man ordered a drone attack that could have had mass casualties.

If the Daily Bugle had any lawyers on staff, they should have paused before allowing an “anonymous” source to supply a video that clearly was edited. Publishing the video was reckless at best, intentional at worse.

The action of publishing the video can demonstrate it was done with “actual malice,” which is when a statement is made with “knowing its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.” Dykstra v. St. Martin’s Press LLC, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 31813, 9 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020), citing Suozzi v Parente, 202 AD2d 94, 101-02 [1st Dept 1994] [internal citations omitted].

Reckless disregard for the truth is when there is a “high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity[,]” Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., 418 US 323, 332 [1974]). Alternatively, recklessness can mean the defendant “must have entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” Dykstra, at *9, citing Prozeralik v Capital Cities Communications, Inc., 82 NY2d 466, 474 (1993), citing Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v Connaughton, 491 US 657, 667 (1989). However, failing to conduct further investigation is not enough to establish actual malice; the issue is the subjective state of mind of the defendant. Dykstra, at *9, citing [citing St. Amant v Thompson, 390 US 727, 731-33 [1968]; Time, Inc. v Hill, 385 US 374, 387-88 [1967]; Herbert v Lando, 441 US 153, 170 [1979].)

Discovery would be important in establishing that J. Jonah Jameson acted with the reckless disregard for the truth or that he knew the video was not an actual depiction of events in London. Requests for production would focus on the source of the video, whether the video was edited by the anyone at the Daily Bugle, and discussions about airing the video. Moreover, the deposition of J. Jonah Jameson would be an opportunity to capture his vindictiveness towards Spider-Man on the record, which would go to showing his state of mind. Or simply make the jury hate him in a trial. On the flip side, if Jameson refused to participate in discovery, there is the possibility of securing a default judgment against the Daily Bugle as a sanction.

The Importance of Actual Malice

Actual malice is needed to successfully bring a defamation claim against a news publisher for public figures. Spider-Man arguably is a public figure, because he has “assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society,” “occupy positions of . . . persuasive power and influence,” and have achieved “general fame or notoriety in the community.” Matthaus v. Hadjedj, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30855, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018), citing Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., supra at 345, 352; see Yiamouyiannis v Consumers Union of U.S., 619 F2d 932 (2 Cir. 1980).

Spider-Man took affirmative steps to “attract personal attention or striving to achieve a measure of public acclaim,” with his crime fighting and saving half of all life in the universe. See, Maule v. NYM Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 880 (N.Y. 1981). However, he took those affirmative steps as Spider-Man, not as Peter Parker.

Peter Parker as a Private Individual

The entire point of having a secret identify while being a superhero is so your family members do not get killed, stalkers do not follow their every steps, and they can have a “normal” life without bomb throwing super villains trying to kill them. The Daily Bugle deciding the secret identify of Spider-Man was of public interest raises serious privacy torts.

The issue of whether Spider-Man was involved in a terrorist attack and murder arguably is one of public concern (provided there is no actual malice). However, the fact Peter Parker’s identify was disclosed and alleged he committed murder thrust Peter into a fight with a news media corporation. Peter could recover for the damages he sustained from bricks being thrown through his window to attacks if he could show the Daily Bugle “acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties” by a preponderance of the evidence. Chapadeau v. Utica Observer, 38 N.Y.2d 196, 199 (N.Y. 1975).

Did the Daily Bugle act in a “grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties” by publishing an edited video that claimed a 17 year old was a murderer? I think a jury would agree.

1...456...105 Page 5 of 105