Did Mitch and Tiff have a Duty to Rescue in Camp Cretaceous?

February 1, 2021

In this latest installment of InGen’s unfortunate prehistoric endeavors, we meet six teenagers who arrive at Jurassic World just prior to the 2015 incident with the Indominus Rex and begin to settle in at Camp Cretaceous before all hell breaks loose. In the first season, the campers survived multiple encounters with “Toro” the Carnotaurus sastrei as well as fan favorites like the enormous Mosasaurus maximus and the peaceful Parasaurolophus walkeri. While visiting Dr. Wu’s genetics lab, the group befriended a slightly-asymmetrical Ankylosaurus magniventris, whom they named Bumpy and later reunited with in the wilds of the park. While their Camp Cretaceous experience is cut short (not unlike every other Jurassic adventure we’ve witnessed so far), the teens find themselves with plenty of time to soak up the dino experience as they are accidentally left behind when the evacuation boats leave the island. Although the camp counselors are concerned for their charges, it is unclear how soon any potential rescue mission could be undertaken given the physical and political state of the island.

In the second season, the abandoned teens of Camp Cretaceous learn that their new prehistoric neighbors are not the only deadly creatures to roam Isla Nublar. Midway through the season, they encounter a deadly new enemy: eco-tourists.

Well, not actual eco-tourists. More like the “eco-tourists” we saw in Jurassic Park 3. In true Jurassic Park fashion, this couple fills the role of hunters who are only there to chase and shoot at the exotic beasts (and likely anyone that gets too much in their way). However, Mitch and Tiff are not in it for the money or fame like other armed antagonists in the franchise. They’re simply trying to assist the doomed creatures and “preserve their memory,” albeit in a manner that also furnishes Mitch’s “man cave” and lets Tiff release some of her repressed marital anger.

Armed with luxury yurts, assorted weapons, a black-market Jurassic World tablet without a signal, and the nauseating overuse of the term “babe,” the hunters see the campers as equal parts park guides and dino bait. They brought their own tracker, Hap, who breaks the mercenary-with-a-heart-of-gold mold but fails to actually track their unique prey. Although the couple ultimately refuses to transport the campers off the island unless Darius leads them to the “one-stop dino-hunting shop,” it is understandable why the campers trusted the couple’s original assurance of rescue without consideration or compensation.

The campers, like most non-lawyers, would assume that Mitch, Tiff, and Hap were bound to help the stranded adolescents after rescuing them from the C. nasicornis. In addition to the campers’ minority, there is the implicit assumption that these adult newcomers should offer to help. After all, they are there in a comfortable situation with their peacock soap displays and pre-pasted toothbrushes versus simply trying to survive like newly-Ramboesque Ben and the other campers. Morality aside, whether Mitch and Tiff had a legal obligation to use their resources to help the teens will turn on whether there was a duty to rescue.

Duty to Rescue

Jurisdiction is a large factor in determining whether a duty to rescue exists here. In an earlier post, the legal jurisdiction to determine InGen’s liability to the park guests and employees was discussed in favor of California’s jurisdiction despite InGen’s possible desire for Costa Rican law. Since Mitch and Tiff chartered their own ship to Isla Nublar despite the UN quarantine on the island and plan to convert and abscond with partial Jurassic World assets, the couple appears to be independent from Masrani Global (InGen’s successor and owner of the property). Without this corporate connection, we must trek into the murky, blood-drenched legal waters that surround this island 120 miles west of Costa Rica.

As other sources have noted, the 99-year lease of the island to California-based InGen is one factor contributing to a jurisdictional fog not unlike the eponymous cloud coverage of the island itself.[1] To further complicate matters, it appears that both U.S. and Costa Rican law have been applied to different activities on and around the island. While both nations have laws that prohibit shipping lanes and fly zones near the island, the U.S. has also controlled activities and access to the island via the Gene Guard Act of 1997 (revised in 2003).[2] The ambiguous jurisdiction of the island itself and the independent nature of the parties involved will require a more broad look at whether there is a duty to rescue owed to the campers.

Reasonable Duty to Rescue – Civil Law Jurisdictions

If Costa Rican law applies to Isla Nublar, there may be a general duty to rescue as is common in civil law countries, including most in Latin American. While not absolute, this duty would require civilians to intervene and rescue others so long as it is reasonable and does not endanger the rescuer. Under this duty, Mitch and Tiff would likely be held to owe a duty to rescue the campers since the couple had the means to transport the youths off the island and to safety without endangering their own lives. In fact, taking the campers off the island immediately after the C. nasicornis rescue would have saved at least four lives that were lost as part of Mitch and Tiff’s bloody search for the perfect accent piece.

If U.S. law applies, then there is no general duty to rescue even if it means leaving someone to die or suffer grave injury.[3] Unlike the required standard of care for affirmative actions, a general omission, such as the refusal to aid another who is in peril, does not need to be reasonable. Therefore, even though there is an extremely high risk that the minor campers face mortal danger while stranded on an island overrun by dinosaurs, Mitch and Tiff could legally go about their business without so much as a passing glance in the absence of a duty to rescue. However, a special relationship or statute could create such a duty. The Restatement of Torts, Second sets forth examples of special relationships that could trigger this duty. Rest.2d Torts, § 314A:

(1) A common carrier is under a duty to its passengers to take reasonable action
(a) to protect them against unreasonable risk of physical harm, and
(b) to give the first aid after it knows or has reason to know that they are ill or injured, and to care for them until they can be cared for by others.
(2) An innkeeper is under a similar duty to his guests.
(3) A possessor of land who holds it open to the public is under a similar duty to members of the public who enter in response to his invitation.
(4) One who is required by law to take or who voluntarily takes the custody of another under circumstances such as to deprive the other of his normal opportunities for protection is under a similar duty to the other.

Although Mitch and Tiff offer to rescue the campers using their boat, this gesture does not transform them into a common carrier and create a duty to rescue. Similarly, the fact that the couple welcome the campers into their little illegal settlement and seem to offer them access to at least one of the yurts does not qualify them as innkeepers or possessors of land, who owe a greater legal duty to guests. Therefore, the strongest argument for a duty under § 314A would be that there is a duty based on the custodial relationship they create with the teens.

Duty to Rescue – Custodial Relationship

While their initial interactions were pleasant as the couple invited the adolescents to roam about their settlement so they could partake in some food and refresh, all good things must come to an end. In this case, the shift to Mitch and Tiff forcefully taking custody over the three campers in their vicinity occurs when their true business on the island is revealed and the teens reject their pitch that taxidermy is the new immortality. In case there was any doubt of the campers’ volition in their trek to the watering hole, the couple is clearly angered when one of their captees escape. If the custodial role has been assumed and the individuals in custody have been deprived of their normal opportunities for protection, the analysis shifts to whether Mitch and Tiff satisfied their duty of care by protecting the campers in their custody against unreasonable risk of physical harm.

Mitch and Tiff arguably breached their duty to protect Darius, Sammy, and Yasmina the moment they decided to delay their departure from the island and instead head to the dinosaur watering hole, where they hoped to encounter carnivores and large herbivores. While taking unarmed minors to rendezvous with large, unrestrained prehistoric reptiles seems to clearly qualify as an unreasonable risk of physical harm, we need not deal in hypothetical attacks because the group has a run-in with the Tyrannosaurus rex prior to reaching their destination. Although the risk of encountering the mighty queen of the dinosaurs seems high considering the frequency of T. rex encounters throughout the franchise, this was no chance encounter. Darius was actually leading his captors directly to this deadly nest in hopes of escape. This raises the question as to whether Darius and Sammy were still owed protection from their custodians as they sought out this unreasonable risk of physical harm. To further complicate matters, Darius and Sammy manage to steal the couple’s guns and run off to hide just prior to the actual attack.

Although Mitch and Tiff were temporarily parted from their hunting rifles and without physical custody of the campers, it seems like they should still be viewed as custodians at the time of the attack. Although Darius misled the couple to Main Street instead of the watering hole, he did so under the duress of their rescue ultimatum and the unspoken threat of their guns. As such, Darius was only acting through what channels he had available for his best chance at survival and not the “normal opportunities for protection” that he would have been afforded but for his being held against his will. Assuming that Mitch and Tiff remained the custodians from the time of their attempted escape through the T. rex attack, there are several actions and indicators that the couple were not providing the required protection.

First, in response to Tiff’s exasperation when Darius and Sammy run off with their guns, Mitch comments that it may be easier for the couple if the teens are alive. Although it is chilling to hear that Tiff is more indifferent to their deaths, one cannot ignore the implication here that living teens could still function as bait for carnivorous prey or even a distraction for others prey. The focus here is clearly on the benefit to the couple, not the long-term protection of the campers themselves.

Second, Tiff attempts to use her electrical baton to shock one of the hiding campers, only to accidentally electrocute a life-size cutout of the celebrity camper, Brooklyn. This attempt to inflict physical harm would directly violate the duty to protect the intended individual. Immediately after this failed attack, Tiff threatens the campers to dissuade them from trying to run again, thus attempting to reestablish physical custody over them.

Finally, when the T. rex arrives and coincidentally helps to re-arm the dastardly hunters, the couple chooses to abandon Darius and Sammy to the beast while they make their exit, guided by the now-connected tablet. Once more, the campers are forced to try and save themselves with the scarce opportunities available as they are finally freed from the couple’s custody. It is unclear why the couple did not take advantage of the distraction created by the campers to take out the T. rex now that they were armed, except perhaps to allow the beast to eliminate the Darius and Sammy. In fact, when they meet again, Tiff expressly states that she had hoped the fierce predator would have eliminated Darius.

Duty to Rescue – Continued Undertaking

The duty to rescue can also be created through action, such as a voluntary undertaking to aid or protect another. Rest. 2d Torts, § 324:

One who, being under no duty to do so, takes charge of another who is helpless adequately to aid or protect himself is subject to liability to the other for any bodily harm caused to him by
(a) the failure of the actor to exercise reasonable care to secure the safety of the other while within the actor’s charge, or
(b) the actor’s discontinuing his aid or protection, if by so doing he leaves the other in a worse position than when the actor took charge of him.

Mitch and Tiff had no special relationship with any of the campers prior to taking custody of Darius, Sammy, and Yasmina. Therefore, when the couple and Hap rescued the five campers from the C. nasicornis, they took charge of others who were helpless without having a legal duty to do so. As a result, the three adults were obligated to “exercise reasonable care to secure the safety” of the campers they rescued and, should they discontinue their aid or protection, they could not leave the rescuees in a worse position. While Mitch and Tiff might have argued that their aid and protection was limited to the discrete rescue from that one dinosaur, a court would have likely found that their statements following the encounter suggest that the rescue included but was not limited to that event. In fact, when Darius first asks the rescuers who they are, Tiff responds “after all that, maybe you should call us your salvation.” Given the context of their situation, salvation for the campers would not necessarily be surviving one more dinosaur attack but rather an escape from the island of dinosaurs. Additionally, shortly after they arrive at the adults’ settlement, Mitch tells the campers that once their boat returns, they would “get (them) back to the mainland.” This appears to extend their commitment to protecting and ultimately rescuing the campers, even if the couple knew that they could easily depart at any time. In the meantime, the couple invites the campers to stay in their settlement, enjoying their food and amenities rather than returning to their own tree-based shelter with impenetrable canned peaches.

In contrast to Mitch and Tiff’s deceptions and promises, their hired guide and muscle, Hap, actually commits to his rescuer duties, even pushing the couple to protect the campers to the detriment of their expedition. This is why Hap does everything in his power to protect the campers around him from any bodily harm. Hap going beyond reasonable care to give the utmost care provides a foil for the abysmal protective care given by Mitch and Tiff.

As mentioned before, when their secret is revealed, the couple terminates their prior plan to assist in favor of using passage on their vessel as an incentive. Both this shift in commitment and their initial delay in helping the campers depart from the island can constructively be seen as discontinuing their aid or protection. The formal abandonment of any effort to aid the campers could also be when the couple leaves Brooklyn and Kenji to their own devices after returning to camp for their weapons, or when they make no effort to save Darius and Sammy from the T. rex, or any of the times they menacingly brandish their weapons and threaten the teenagers.

To find Mitch and Tiff liable for failing to satisfy their duty to rescue, the campers would need to demonstrate that they suffered any bodily harm and that they are now in a worse position than if no aid had been rendered. Since none of the campers appeared to be injured while within the couple’s charge, despite the couple exercising less than reasonable care, they would need to satisfy Rest. 2d Torts, § 324(b) by showing that they are in a worse position than when they met Mitch and Tiff. It is unclear what potential rescue opportunities the campers might have missed due to their distraction with Mitch and Tiff or if being abandoned at the dock while Tiff sailed off on the boat put them in a dangerous situation. However, there is one product of this abandoned rescue that will likely pose trouble next season. While the campers attempted to save Darius and Sammy from the couple, Kenji accidentally triggered the release of the specimen in room E750. Although Kenji was acting in character pushing the button like a starving Skinner pigeon in that scenario, he likely would not have acted that way if the campers had stumbled into the room in a different, less time-sensitive situation. Next season, the campers could be in a far worse position than facing down a C. nasicornis should this new, ominous creature cross their path.

[1] Franklin Webb, Mount Sibo: Life at the Edge of Chaos, DINOSAUR PROTECTION GROUP (February 4), http://www.dinosaurprotectiongroup.com/volcano.html.

[2] Zia Rodriguez, What Killed the Gene Guard Act?, DINOSAUR PROTECTION GROUP (February 23), http://www.dinosaurprotectiongroup.com/what-killed-the-gene-guard-act.html.

[3] People v. Oliver, 210 Cal. App. 3d 138, 147 (1989).

Wanda and Vision’s Duty to their Dinner Guests

Josh Gilliland

January 18, 2021

What is your liability if your boss comes to dinner at your house and chokes on a piece of food? The Scarlet Witch and Vision had to face that threat in the first episode of WandaVision, where the real danger was not chewing enough before swallowing food.

Mr. Heart, from Computational Services, required employees to have him over for dinner in order to be considered for promotion. A bad dinner could result in being terminated. This situation made Mr. and Mrs. Heart “business visitors” in Wanda and Vision’s home, because the Hearts were there for “a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings between them.” O’Keefe v. S. End Rowing Club, 64 Cal. 2d 729, 735, (1966). As such, the Hearts were “invitees,” because the dinner party involved “some matter of mutual business interest or advantage.” Id. This meant that Wanda and Vision owed the Hearts a duty of “reasonable care under all the circumstances.” Ruhs v. Pacific Power Light, 671 F.2d 1268, 1272 (10th Cir. 1982).

People are responsible for “an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.

It requires a serious suspension of disbelief that Wanda’s cooking was responsible for Mr. Heart not chewing his food before swallowing. While there is the possibility food was not properly prepared, the idea that Wanda created the situation where Mr. Heart bit off more than he could chew is highly problematic.

This was not a situation where a homeowner hosting a dinner party did not immediately clean up a spill and a dinner guest had a slip and fall as a basis for liability. Those kinds of affirmative facts of negligence are not present with Mr. Heart’s lack of chewing. Corrado v. Delzotti, 15 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961).

Case law has held that the duty owed to an invitee in a restaurant is to summon medical assistance during a medical emergency, not actually providing first aid. Drew v. LeJay’s Sportmen’s Cafe, Inc., 806 P.2d 301, 306 (Wyo. 1991). In the Drew case, the victim had a 2-inch by 2-inch chunk of meat lodged in his trachea that likely would have required surgery. Id. The Defendant contacted 911 for assistance. Moreover, the opinion noted that at that time, there were an estimated 270 billion meals consumed in the U.S., with only 3,000 choking death each year. The idea of a food server having to face a choking victim was remote. That said it would be a wise business practice for anyone in food service to know the Heimlich maneuver. “Eat at your own risk,” is a horrible marketing campaign for a restaurant.

Wanda and Vision were morally correct to not let Mr. Heart choke to death. Vision’s intervention was less traumatic than performing an “upper chest thrust” to remove the obstruction from Mr. Heart’s trachea. While their duty was likely limited to calling 911, knowing the signs of choking and how to perform the Heimlich maneuver is basic human decency in the 21^st Century.

Saving The Child from the Client on the Mandalorian

Josh Gilliland

November 27, 2019

How do you atone for the sin of turning a child over to fascists for medical experimentation that would be a war crime? In the Mandalorian’s case, you go save the kid in a way that makes Clint Eastwood in Unforgiving look restrained.

Spoilers ahead for The Mandalorian, Chapter 3, The Sin.

Did the Mandalorian have a Duty to Rescue Child from the Imperial Remnant?

The law does not impose a duty to rescue a stranger absent a special relationship. Moreover, there is no duty to protect others from the criminal acts of third parties. Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn. 2d 658, 674-75 (Wash. 1998), citing W. PAGE KEETON ET AL., PROSSER AND KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS § 56 (5th ed. 1984) and Hutchins v. 1001 Fourth Ave. Assocs., 116 Wn.2d 217, 223 (1991).

A “special relationship” can arise when one party is entrusted with the well-being of another individual. Folsom, *675, citing Lauritzen v. Lauritzen, 74 Wn. App. 432, 440, 874 P.2d 861 (1994). One of those situations is when someone has a custodial relationship to another. Stangle v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 198 Cal.App.3d 971, 974-75 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988), and Rest.2d Torts, § 314A.

The Mandalorian arguably had developed a custodial relationship with the Child based on the following events: finding the Child; protecting the Child from IG-11; protecting the Child from the Trandoshan bounty hunters; and refusing the Jawa offer to take the Child in exchange for the stolen parts to the Razor Crest. During this entire series of events, the Mandalorian had a custodial relationship with the Child. Moreover, the Mandalorian’s actions arguably put him “in loco parentis” to the Child, which is when “to a person who has put himself in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming the obligations incident to the parental relation without going through the formalities necessary to legal adoption.” Fuller v. Fuller, 247 A.2d 767, 770 (D.C. 1968), citing Niewiadomski v. United States, 159 F.2d 683, 686 (6th Cir. 1947), cert. denied, 331 U.S. 850, 67 S.Ct. 1730, 91 L.Ed. 1859. Moreover, “in loco parentis” only arises when someone is “willing to assume all the obligations and to receive all the benefits associated with one standing as a natural parent to a child.” Id.

The Mandalorian provided the Child safety and security while the Child was in his care. Moreover, the only time the Child cried was when Stormtroopers took the Child away for medical experimentation. Based upon the above series of events, The Mandalorian had developed a “special relationship” with the Child, which mandated rescuing the Child from the Imperial Remnant.

Was the Mandalorian’s Raid on the Imperials Justified under the Defense of Others?

Yoda said to Luke Skywalker, “A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack.” The Mandalorian did not get that memo. Moreover, an attack on an aggressor upon another could justify an attack upon the aggressor under the defense of others. The question is whether the defense of others justified the Mandalorian raiding an Imperial compound to rescue the Child.

A person has engaged in perfect defense of others – and is not guilty of homicide – if he kills a person with, “an honest and reasonable belief in the need to defend himself or others from great bodily injury or death.” People v. Garcia, B259708, at *6-7 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2016), citing People v. Valenzuela 199 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1227 (2011), quoting People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 674-675; § 197, subd. 3. The subjective belief of danger negates the malice necessary to make the homicide murder, which then turns to the issue of whether that belief was reasonable. Garcia, citing People v. Rodriguez 53 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1269 (1997).

Did the Mandalorian have an honest and reasonable belief that he needed to defend the Child from the Imperials? The Mandalorian watched with his infrared scope, that also picked up audio, a conversation between the Client and Dr. Pershing directing the Doctor to quickly extract the necessary material from the Child because the Client could no longer guarantee Dr. Pershing’s safety. Coupled with every Bounty Hunter having been retained by the Client to terminate the Child, the Mandalorian did have an honest and reasonable belief the Child was in mortal danger from the Client having Dr. Pershing conduct a medical procedure that could kill the Child. This reasonable belief would negate the malice required for murdering fourteen Stormtroopers and makes his use of force justifiable in order to save the Child.

Let’s not forget the Imperials were the ones who had blown up planets and waged wars on civilian populations in their Doctrine of Fear. It would be unreasonable to not see them as an imminent threat to anyone in their custody.

Self Defense Against Bounty Hunters

The entire Bounty Hunters Guild all had tracking fobs activate after the Mandalorian rescued the Child from the Imperials. This resulted in the Bounty Hunters confronting the Mandalorian and a shootout with at least sixteen other Bounty Hunters.

The doctrine of self-defense requires a person to reasonably believe that their safety was endangered. Over a dozen Bounty Hunters surrounded the Mandalorian. The Client had retained those very same Bounty Hunters to kill the Child. Moreover, Greef Karga had stated earlier the other Bounty Hunters wanted the Mandalorian dead for his success in finding the Child. Furthermore, during the shootout Karga also stated a threat to kill the Mandalorian and strip his body for parts. There was more than enough of a reasonable belief for the Mandalorian to fear for his life, and that of the Child, for him to claim self-defense in his gunfight with the Bounty Hunters.

Does A Faceless Girl Face Tort Liability?

Stephen Tollafield

May 16, 2019

In Season 8, Episode 5 of Game of Thrones, Arya Stark finds herself trapped in King’s Landing during Daenerys’s attack, and as Arya flees the destruction, she encounters a terrified group of civilians. Arya persuades a mother and her daughter to go with her, insisting that they will die otherwise. Unfortunately, shortly after leaving the shelter, the mother and daughter were killed.

Assuming that the mother and daughter have surviving relatives who could sue Arya, is Arya liable for the tort of wrongful death?

Other than those in law enforcement or who are emergency responders, we regular citizens have no legal duty to help anyone in distress, as callous as that may sound. And once upon a time, it used to be that if a person attempted a rescue, the rescuer could have faced civil liability if the rescue failed and the rescuee wound up injured or otherwise worse off. Obviously, this risk of liability did not inspire a great deal of heroism.

To address this problem, all fifty states now have some kind of “Good Samaritan Law” that protects rescuers from civil liability. In California, for example, the Good Samaritan law is Health and Safety Code section 1799.102(b): “[N]o person who . . . renders emergency . . . assistance at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission other than an act or omission constituting gross negligence.” This would sound pretty good to Arya, given that a dragon attack (!!!) qualifies as an emergency and her evacuation attempt would qualify as nonmedical emergency assistance.

Unfortunately, Arya may have a problem. The California Good Samaritan statute has an exception for a rescue attempt that is so foolhardy and reckless that it amounts to “gross negligence,” which is usually defined as a “want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.” City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal. 4th 747, 754 (2007) (quotes omitted). To convince a court that Arya should not receive the benefit of the Good Samaritan law, the plaintiffs might argue that luring the mother and daughter from their hiding place and out into the open was grossly negligent.

And they might have a point. If any of the other people that were hiding with the mother and daughter survived, those survivors could testify that they vigorously disagreed with Arya’s advice to run. They obviously believed that leaving their shelter seemed to them like “an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.”

However, Arya could argue that given how thoroughly doomed King’s Landing was in the face of a dragon attack, remaining in their shelter offered less hope than the admittedly very slim chance of escape. Arya could argue that her effort, even if it didn’t succeed, is exactly the kind of heroism that Good Samaritan laws protect. Ultimately, A Girl is likely a Good Samaritan—and is justified in freely riding off on a random white horse while facing no tort liability.

Does Supergirl Need a Lawyer?

Josh Gilliland

November 16, 2015

We both love the new Supergirl series. Check out our podcast on the legal issues of being a super-hero, plus the huge eDiscovery issues with heroes sending instant messages.

The Curse of the Friend Zone

Josh Gilliland

October 22, 2014

The phrase “I love you like a brother [or sister]” is one of the most traumatic things a person can hear. Sleepy Hollow drove home the emotional damage of being “friend zoned” with the strange case of Mary Wells, the Weeping Lady.

There are no cases on point for “friend zoning” someone as a cause of action for emotional distress.

However, in the case of Mary Wells, we learn her jealousy for Crane saying “I love you like a brother loves a sister,” resulted in her confronting Katrina during the Revolutionary War, falling to her death, then becoming an evil spirit that would drown women interested in Ichabod Crane.

Mary’s first victim is Caroline, the nice lady from the Revolutionary War re-enactment who has taken to making shirts for Crane, plus turning butter. Mary attempted to drown Abbie, who Crane is able to rescue, which required Hawley to give Abbie CPR.

Did Hawley have a legal obligation to perform CPR on Abbie? No, there is no duty to rescue, unless there is a special relationship between the parties. Moreover, it is difficult to say a librarian would have had a duty to rescue Abbie from drowning in a magic revenge portal to the river in the library, there could have been a duty to render CPR aid since Abbie technically is a business invitee in the library.

Hawley did not have a legal duty, but his actions to perform CPR would have been protected by the New York Good Samaritan Law. As Courts have explained, “[t]he broad goal of the Good Samaritan Law is to prompt aid by people under no duty to act who otherwise might be dissuaded by the prospect of ordinary tort liability.” Miglino v Bally Total Fitness of Greater N.Y., Inc., 20 N.Y.3d 342, 348 (N.Y.2013).

Now would Crane be responsible for Mary’s murder or Caroline? No, because magical actions of revenge would be a superseding act that is simply not foreseeable for telling someone “I am not that into you.”