Home Blog Page 77

Employee Safety at Jurassic World

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cal Lab Code § 6400.

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

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

Flying_Pterodactyl_Jungle_Unsafe_1920

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

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

Zara_MaryPoppins_3100

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

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

Juris Rex: Jurassic World Class Action Litigation

0

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

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

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

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

Failure to Protect Attendees from Harm as a Common Carrier

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

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

JurassicWorld_Dude

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liability for Dinosaur Attacks

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

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

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

Property Liability for Indominus Rex

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

ExpertTestimony_Dinosaur_Harm_3129

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

(a) The location of the property;

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

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

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

(c) The likelihood of harm;

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

(d) The probable seriousness of such harm;

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

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

There is no question of knowledge of the risk.

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

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

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

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

A Verdict for Extinction

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

Law of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Guest Podcast on Thinking Like a Lawyer

0

We were honored to sit down with Elie Mystal and Joe Patrice from Above The Law to discuss legal issues in the Marvel Cinematic Universe on their podcast Thinking Like a Lawyer on Legal Talk Network.

Law Finds a Way: Dinosaur Liability in Jurassic World

0

Jurassic World asks the question: What is the liability for a zoo full of dinosaurs that start eating people? Seriously, who is their insurance carrier? Exactly how big was the retainer for the law firm representing them? Are there plaintiffs law firms that specialize in dinosaur bite cases? Do state bar associations offer certifications in dinosaur law? Will Jurassic World at least have one lawyer who does not get eaten by a dinosaur this time?

Mitigating liability would take a lawyer who is a Raptor whisperer. Generally speaking, there is strict liability for zoos where an animal injures a person. Consider the law from Alaska as an example:

(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a person who owns or operates a zoo is strictly liable for injury to a person or property if the injury is caused by an animal owned by or in the custody of the zoo.

(b) A person who owns or operates a zoo is not strictly liable as provided in (a) of this section if

(1) The animal that caused the injury was within the animal’s normal place of confinement at the time the injury occurred;

(2) The zoo owner or operator had posted signs at prominent places within the zoo, including at each entrance, warning that the liability of the zoo for injuries caused by animals within their normal place of confinement is limited by law; and

(3) The enclosure within which the animal was confined at the time of the injury was constructed and maintained in a manner that prevents a person who exercises ordinary care customary for a person of similar age, intelligence, and experience from contacting the animal or entering the enclosure.

1990 AK. ALS 101.

Zoos have had plenty of litigation with animals that have attacked human beings. Take a case from 1925, where a zoo had a bear chained to a tree for a feeding. A visitor walked up to the bear and fed the candy. The bear bite the plaintiff’s hand and “threw the visitor to the ground and tore flesh from her leg and hand.” Byrnes v. Jackson (1925) 140 Miss. 656, 665.

The Court explained:

It cannot be the law that the city can place in its parks ferocious and dangerous animals by which the safety, and even the lives, of the public would be endangered without requiring the city to keep such animals securely confined. As a general rule persons having animals wild by nature and of ferocious disposition are required to keep such animals confined absolutely, or pay for any damage sustained by a failure so to do. 

Judge Ethridge, Supreme Court of Mississippi, Byrnes v Jackson, at *670.

The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that the city was strictly liable for the zookeeper’s negligence in having a bear chained to a tree. Id.

What does this mean for the upcoming Jurassic World? First, the park has strict liability for injuries caused from dinosaurs that escape their normal places of confinement. Expect to see big warning signs by each dinosaur enclosure. Plus, every attendee should be signing a massive liability waiver that includes clauses such as “Can be eaten by a dinosaur, resulting in death or maiming.”

With that as a primer for the movie, get ready to eat lots of popcorn during Jurassic World.

Lawyers Assemble! Legal Issues in Age of Ultron

0

Jess and I are out for justice! We take on the legal issues presented in Avengers Age of Ultron, from whether the Scarlet Witch gets a total free pass for working with HYDRA to the legality of breaking a helicarrier out of surplus. Plus we discuss some issues from Agents of SHIELD.

 

What’s Wrong with Super-Heroes Having Secret Prisons?

0

Both Arrow and The Flash have the good guys imprisoning super-villains from meta-humans to highly skilled assassins in secret prisons. There are strong arguments these civil rights violations are born out of necessity, because trials for meta-humans can be problematic if jails and the court system cannot contain people who can teleport, control the weather, or shoot energy out of their eyes.

The Flash actually addressed this issue in the penultimate episode of the season. Joe West challenged Barry about moving meta-humans from one black site to another. West further went to the District Attorney for help, only to have her expression best be described as an ulcer exploded while speaking with Detective West about unlawfully imprisoning super-villains.

Here is what is wrong with both Green Arrow and The Flash holding people prisoner in a secret prison: the heroes commit a total denial of due process of law in total violation of the Constitution. This is actually worse for Barry Allen, since he works for the police department.

Let’s explore the different legal challenges for our heroes.

False Imprisonment

Assuming Starling City is in Northern California and Central City is somewhere in Oregon (thus 600 miles apart and coastal cities), we will use both California and Oregon law.

For the Arrow, False Imprisonment is “the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another.” Cal Pen Code § 236. Furthermore, the law does allow for private citizens to make arrests, however the private citizen must take the arrested person before a magistrate or turn them over to a peace officer without “unnecessary delay.” Cal Pen Code § 847.

The Arrow (and those on Team Arrow) have turned criminals over to the police, but super-villains still end up on Lian Yu without a trial. There is no legal way to justify false imprisonment committed by the Arrow.

The Flash has a similar issue with imprisoning meta-humans at S.T.A.R. Labs. Oregon has very similar laws on citizen’s arrests based on probable cause; however, Barry Allen’s job a forensic examiner for the police makes him a peace officer. ORS § 133.225. Those imprisoned at S.T.A.R. Labs could sue Barry Allen on a 1983 Action for depriving them of their civil rights, including the right to counsel, Miranda warnings, a speedy trial, and all other protections offered by the Constitution.

Flash-FlaseImprisonment_Post

Kidnapping

Everyone taken to a secret prison has been kidnapped. The Arrow committed kidnapping by taking Slade Wilson by arresting him in Starling City and then transporting him to Lian Yu. See, Cal Pen Code § 207(a).

Barry Allen has committed kidnapping because in the second degree because he intentionally took multiple meta-humans to S.T.A.R Labs with the intent to “interfere substantially with another’s personal liberty, and without consent or legal authority” and secretly confined them where they would not likely be found. ORS § 163.225(1)(b).

Legends of Civil Rights Violations

There is no question that Green Arrow and The Flash are the good guys. However, their knowledge of Constitutional Criminal Procedure has a lot of room for improvement. If only they knew a District Attorney who could give them pointers on the law.

Strict Liability for Fish Oil Dietary Supplements Tainted with Terrigen Crystals?

0

The Agents of SHIELD season finale left us with the ultimate cliffhanger: No, not what the heck happened to Jemma Simmons, but what is the products liability for the dietary supplement company whose fish oil product was tainted by Terrigen Crystals?

It would not take the Center for Disease Control long to see there was something fishy about people turning stone-like and crumbling into pieces.

First thing first: Dietary supplements are governed by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, which has less regulation then real medications or food. According to the Dietary Supplemental Health and Education Act of 1994 , the “Federal Government should not take any actions to impose unreasonable regulatory barriers limiting or slowing the flow of safe products and accurate information to consumers.” Paragraph 13 of DIETARY SUPPLEMENT HEALTH AND EDUCATION ACT OF 1994, 1994 Enacted S. 784, 103 Enacted S. 784, 108 Stat. 4325, 4326. Moreover, the Act also states in paragraph 14 that “dietary supplements are safe within a broad range of intake, and safety problems with the supplements are relatively rare.” Id.

If the FDA Secretary declares an imminent hazard to public health from dietary supplements, the Secretary “shall promptly” hold proceedings to affirm or withdraw the declaration. Section 4 of Act.

Given the number of people who will either turn in rubble or mutate into a drooling dog that can teleport, that hearing should go fairly quickly with bipartisan freak-outs over safety.

People who watched family members turn into dust would sue the fish oil manufacturer on a products liability claim. Many states follow the Restatement of Torts, 2nd § 402A on strict products liability. The rule states:

402A. Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer

(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if

(a) The seller is engaged in the business of selling such product, and

(b) It is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.

(2) The rule stated in subsection (1) applies although (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.”

California summarizes the rule as follows: “[a] manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market … proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being.” Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 377 P.2d 897, 900 (Cal. 1963).

FishOil_Liability

In a 1978 New Mexico case, a Plaintiff failed to prove a can of 7-Up with unknown blood vessels in it was “unsuitable for its intended purpose, but they also had to prove that it was unreasonably dangerous.” Tenney v. Seven-Up Co., 1978-NMCA-090, ¶¶ 7-8 [92 N.M. 158, 160, 584 P.2d 205, 207]. It is a safe bet this case would have a different result today with “blood anything” in a can of soda.

Surviving family members suing the fish oil manufacturer could argue very effectively the fish oil was defective, because taking a fish oil pill should not kill or mutate someone. However, the fact dietary supplements have less regulation thanks to effective lobbying in the 1990s, the dietary company could argue against strict liability for the deaths, because strict liability is not absolute liability.

There is a huge problem for plaintiffs in suing a dietary supplement company that manufacturers fish oil pills: the plaintiffs would have to prove that the risk of the Terrigen Crystals was knowable from currently available scientific knowledge. Just what safety testing does a dietary supplement company have to do on fish oil? Would any anomalies be detectible with the tests the dietary supplement company currently conducts? The answers to these questions could sink the plaintiffs’ case.

Here is a wild idea: If SHIELD did not have a rogue aircraft carrier outside the military chain of command, perhaps reporting to the Secretary of Defense would have alerted the FDA to have all fish products used for human consumption tested. The area could have been quarantined from all commercial fishing given the fact a genetic WMD was lost overboard.

Keeping_the_aircraft_carrier_8771