Monthly Archives: March 2012

Xavier’s School for Gifted Plaintiffs

Posted on March 9, 2012 by | 12 comments

Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters (aka the Xavier Institute) has existed in several most versions of the X-Men as a place of safety for young mutants, a training ground for future X-Men, and a private school.  These purposes are somewhat in tension, however, and students are sometimes injured either in the course of instruction or because of attacks on the school.  That leads to today’s question from Frank, who asks: “Is Professor X responsible for minor students in a parental capacity? What happens when one of them is injured or killed while at school?”

There are a few different aspects to this question.  First there’s the question of the school’s institutional liability, and second there’s the question of Professor X’ (and the teachers’) personal liability.

I. Institutional Liability

Xavier’s School is a private school in New York.  It’s usually written as a charitable school.  In some states this would entitle it to a certain degree of immunity, but New York (unlike, e.g., New Jersey) rejected the doctrine of charitable immunity several decades ago.  Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656 (1957). So if the school can be sued, what could it be sued for?

The most likely cause of action is negligence: negligently allowing students to take part in dangerous activities, negligently failing to prevent superpowered students from harming one another, negligently failing to protect the students from outside threats, etc.

Normally one isn’t liable for failing to protect someone else from harm, but certain special relationships (e.g. parent/child) can create a duty to rescue, protect, or supervise.  Schools have such a relationship with students:

Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision.  Schools are not insurers of safety, however, for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students; therefore, schools are not to be held liable for every thoughtless or careless act by which one pupil may injure another.  A teacher owes it to his or her charges to exercise such care of them as a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable circumstances.  The duty owed derives from the simple fact that a school, in assuming physical custody and control over its students, effectively takes the place of parents and guardians.

Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49 (1994).  So while a school may not be liable for every injury caused by a student, it will be liable if the injury was the result of inadequate supervision.  What’s more, since Xavier’s is a residential school, this duty is basically continuous, because “Ordinarily, the duty of care imposed on a school district, and in this case a private school, terminates upon a student’s release from their physical custody.”  David XX v. Saint Catherine’s Center for Children, 699 N.Y.S.2d 827, 830 (App. Div. 1999).

So the school’s liability will ultimately come down to whether the teachers and staff acted reasonably and whether the injury was foreseeable.  If the teachers follow all the right protocols but a superpowered delinquent blows up the school, well, that’s tough.  Similarly, a random attack by evil mutants may be unforeseeable, so it doesn’t really matter whether the school took reasonable precautions to protect the students from such an attack or not.

II. Personal Liability

“A school district, like any other employer, may be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for a tort committed by an employee in the course of the performance of the employee’s duties.”  Mary KK v. Jack LL, 611 N.Y.S.2d 347, 348 (App. Div. 1994).  Of course, the employee is also still liable (and the employer can turn around and seek compensation from the employee for any damages the employer has to pay out), but most plaintiffs prefer to sue the party with deeper pockets.

But as the quote suggests, the employer is only liable under certain circumstances.  As the Mary KK court said, “What constitutes the scope of employment is generally a jury question, but” there are some guidelines.  “An act falls within the scope of an employee’s duties when the employee is doing his master’s work, no matter how irregularly, or with what disregard of instructions. On the other hand, there is no respondeat superior liability for torts committed for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business.”  Murray v. Watervliet City School Dist., 515 N.Y.S.2d 150, 152 (App. Div. 1987).  More specifically, courts and juries look at factors such as:

the connection between the time, place and occasion for the act; the history of the relationship between employer and employee as spelled out in actual practice; whether the act is one commonly done by such an employee; the extent of departure from normal methods of performance; and whether the specific act was one that the employer could reasonably have anticipated

Riviello v. Waldron, 47 N.Y.2d 297, 303 (1979).  Sometimes the school might be vicariously liable, but it won’t be liable for the actions of “rogue” (no pun intended) employees.

III. Conclusion

We certainly hope Xavier’s has a serious insurance policy (or three).  Not only could it be sued, but it’s a magnet for serious injuries.  Waivers can help for voluntary activities, but not there are limits to what can be waived.  Of course, if the school goes beyond negligence and into the realm of gross negligence or intentional misconduct then its insurer may not cover it at all.

12 Comments

Posted in insurance, mailbag, torts, X-Men

Superman, Kryptonite, and Treason

Posted on March 7, 2012 by | 31 comments

Today we’re continuing to clear out the mailbag, this time with a question from Jon, who asks about the 2008 Superman/Batman story arc “The Search for Kryptonite” (now available as a trade paperback):

[In the story], a Kryptonite meteorite has landed, making the element common all over the world. People are putting it in jewellery, using it as paperweights – it’s everywhere. Superman decides that the only way he can be effective as a hero is to gather it all up and get rid of it, arguing that people die when he’s incapacitated. “I can only save as many people as I can be there for.” What right does Superman have to do this?

Aquaman calls it arrogance, when Supes and Batman are collecting a large chunk of green K from the seabed – “You do as you will, and expect people to thank you for it”. Amanda Waller calls it treason, when they break into a government facility to take K-based weapons (a multi-billion dollar facility specifically created to stop Superman, should he go rogue) – “You boys justified the need for this facility the minute you broke into it”.

There are two aspects to this question: first, does Superman have any right to go rounding up kryptonite and second, did Superman and Batman really commit treason?

I. Self-Defense?

The answer to the first part is “no,” for two reasons.  First, Superman isn’t in any imminent danger from the vast majority of the kryptonite, so self-defense doesn’t apply (and thus defense-of-others doesn’t apply to Batman’s actions either).  Second, like everyone else, Superman doesn’t have a general duty to prevent crime or rescue others.  Thus, although an abundance of kryptonite may be unfortunate for both Superman and the general public, it isn’t interfering with a legal obligation and so Superman can’t really claim a legal right to remove the kryptonite.  Even if he could, his remedy would be in court, not taking matters into his own hands.

II. Treason?

The answer to the second part is also “no and yes.”  While Superman and Batman no doubt broke multiple federal laws by breaking into the Last Line facility, it couldn’t have been treason for Superman, though it might conceivably have been for Batman.

In the US, treason is defined by the Constitution thus: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” U.S. Const. art. 3 § 3 (emphasis added).  That ‘only’ means that Congress has no power to redefine treason.  “This definition is meticulously exclusive and that it was so intended is indicated by the use of the adverb ‘only.’  The Constitution has left no room for constructive treason and Congress could not and has not undertaken to restrict or enlarge the constitutional definition.”  Stephan v. United States, 133 F.2d 87, 90 (6th Cir. 1943).

Arguably, neither Superman nor Batman has levied war against the United States.  Levying war requires that “a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose.”  Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75, 126 (1807).  I’m not sure how many men it takes to make “a body,” but I suspect it’s more than two.  Otherwise any two people who committed or intended to commit a violent crime against the United States could be charged with treason.

That leaves adhering to and giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.  The problem is that the only possible enemy aided or comforted here is Superman himself.  And if Superman is an enemy of the United States, then it stands to reason that he cannot owe the United States a duty of loyalty and thus cannot commit treason.  If there were some larger entity that Superman was assisting (e.g. a Kryptonian separatist group), then that would be different, but as it stands he appears to be the only direct beneficiary, which makes it difficult to call him a traitor rather than a run-of-the-mill self-interested criminal (albeit one with superpowers).

The same cannot necessarily be said of Batman, however.  If Superman is an enemy of the United States (as proven when he broke into a military base), then Batman is arguably committing treason by helping him.  “Aid and comfort” are read very broadly, and includes “an act which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the [sovereign] and of the country to resist or to attack the enemies of the [sovereign] and the country.” Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1, 29 (1945) (quoting Lord Reading in the Casement trial).  Since the Last Line was created specifically to defend against a possible rogue Superman, helping Superman destroy that facility seems like a pretty clear example of “weakening the power of the United States to resist or to attack the enemies of the United States.”

Superman’s citizenship is not an issue, by the way.  One does not have to be a citizen to commit treason; even a resident alien owes the United States a kind of loyalty, and Superman is definitely at least a resident alien (if not necessarily a lawful one).  See Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. 147, 154 (1872) (“The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.”).

III. Conclusion

So is Superman just completely hosed here if he wants to follow the law?  Not necessarily.  At a minimum, he could keep his Clark Kent alter ego safe by claiming to have developed a kryptonite allergy.  This would probably qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, with the result that the Daily Planet (or at least the part of the office where Kent works) would become a kryptonite-free zone.  Since there’s no real need for kryptonite there, that seems like a reasonable accommodation.

This may seem like a pretty poor consolation, but on the other hand Superman’s kryptonite-resistant “K-suit” managed to survive a pretty severe beating before giving out, so he’d probably be able to continue fighting crime effectively.  He’d just have to be a bit more careful.

31 Comments

Posted in Batman, constitutional law, criminal law, mailbag, Superman

Arkham Asylum and Liability for Private Prisons

Posted on March 5, 2012 by | 15 comments

In February 20th’s post regarding Knightfall, a number of commenters wondered if the fact that Arkham Asylum is presented as a private entity in some stories might affect its liability for escaping prisoners. This is actually a really good question, and one that’s becoming increasingly important as more and more states experiment with privatized prison systems. Arizona is something of a leader here, and its practices have come under pretty intense criticism on a number of fronts. But here, we’re going to look solely at whether private prisons can be sued for damages caused by escaped prisoners.

As discussed in the first post, for our purposes, it really doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about a jail, prison, or mental institution, provided the inmates are there as the result of a court order. That order could be a sentence for a crime or simply protective custody. The fact is that they’re there at the requirement of the state and not allowed to leave, so escape would be a crime. The question is whether the operator of a private prison would be more or less liable for actions an inmate takes after escaping than the state would be.
Continue reading →

15 Comments

Posted in Batman, constitutional law, torts

Person of Interest: Witness

Posted on March 2, 2012 by | 14 comments

We’ll be back with more comic book-inspired posts next week, but we’ve been clearing out the mailbag lately and we’ve had quite a few questions about television shows.  Today’s question comes from Brian, who asks about an episode of Person of Interest.  Minor spoilers ahead.

In the episode, protagonist John Reese is trying to protect a witness to a mob killing.  Unfortunately, the witness is shot in the shoulder.  With the mob still on their trail, Reese makes an attempt at first aid using topically applied cocaine and glue, without the witness’s prior consent.  Brian asks:

If/when the victim presents himself at the hospital and informs doctors of how it was treated, would the victim be in violation of any laws due to the presence of cocaine in his bloodstream and/or how would he be (legally) expected to handle the consequences of being given a highly addictive and illegal street drug as an analgesic?

There are several aspects to this question.  First, did Reese violate any laws?  Second, did the witness?  And third, how does the physician/patient privilege come into play?

First, a brief factual background: cocaine has legitimate medical uses, including as  a vasoconstrictor to control bleeding (that’s why it’s a Schedule II drug instead of Schedule I in the US).  Its use in that role is mostly limited to areas like the nose rather than large-scale trauma like a gunshot, but there’s at least some theoretical efficacy there.  Similarly, certain cyanoacrylate glues (e.g. Dermabond) are FDA approved for use in closing wounds.  The medically approved kind are not all that different from over-the-counter cyanoacrylate glues, so again there’s some vaguely reasonable basis for the treatment.

I. Reese’s Liability

The most obvious problem is that Reese purchased and possessed an illegal drug.  It’s hard to tell exactly how much he bought, but it was probably about a gram, which would make it fourth degree criminal possession of a controlled substance under N.Y. Penal Law § 220.09, a Class C felony, plus liability as a buyer.  Could this be excused under a necessity theory?  And even if that could be excused, what is his potential liability if his first aid actually made things worse?

A. Necessity

In New York, the defense of necessity is called “justification,” and is described by N.Y. Penal Law § 35.05:

… conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:

…

Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue. The necessity and justifiability of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder.

Basically New York follows a “choice of evils” theory: “the desirability and urgency of avoiding such injury [must] clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.”  Importantly, the choice is judged by an objective standard: the question is whether a reasonable person would agree that Reese’s conduct was necessary under the circumstances?  See People v. Craig, 78 N.Y.2d 616 (1991).

The word “necessary” must also be emphasized.  The statute “rules out conduct that is tentative or only advisable or preferable or conduct for which there is a reasonable, legal alternative course of action.”  Craig, 78 N.Y.2d at 623.

So, was there an imminent private injury?  Yes, the witness had been shot, was severely wounded, and there was no help on the way.  Was it Reese’s fault?  No, he was trying to protect the witness, who was shot by the mob.  Was Reese’s action necessary under the circumstances?  Quite possibly, but that issue would probably ultimately come down to expert testimony.  If a reasonable person would have thought that the witness was likely to die without the ad hoc medical treatment (and ordinary first aid would have been insufficient), then it was probably justified.

B. Good Samaritan Laws

So far, so good.  Reese may be off the hook for buying the cocaine.  But what if his unusual first aid actually made things worse?  Could the witness sue?

New York, like just about every state, has a “Good Samaritan law” that limits liability for people who render aid to others.  New York’s law is particularly strong, since it gives complete immunity to qualifying people who give aid:

… any person who voluntarily and without expectation of monetary compensation renders first aid or emergency treatment at the scene of an accident or other emergency outside a hospital, doctor’s office or any other place having proper and necessary medical equipment, to a person who is unconscious, ill, or injured, shall not be liable for damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by such person or for damages for the death of such person alleged to have occurred by reason of an act or omission in the rendering of such emergency treatment unless it is established that such injuries were or such death was caused by gross negligence on the part of such person.

N.Y. Public Health Law § 3000-a.  So as long as Reese’s cocaine & Superglue first aid didn’t amount to gross negligence, he’s in the clear.  Of course, it’s easy to argue that cocaine is so often adulterated with toxic substances that it would be gross negligence to even try to use it in that situation.  It would all come back to what a reasonable person would think and whether Reese, knowing of an unreasonable risk, took it anyway.

So that’s Reese’s liability.  Now let’s turn to the witness.

II. Possession

If Reese’s use of the drug was justified, then the witness’s possession is also necessarily justified, but if Reese’s use wasn’t justified, then could the witness be in trouble?

In New York (as in most jurisdictions), possession requires knowledge of the possession of the controlled substance.  In this case, the witness was conscious as the cocaine was administered, so he certainly had knowledge.  And while he wasn’t asked for permission in advance, he seemed to consent during the procedure (“there’s a first time for everything”), so he can’t claim that he tried to divest himself of the drugs.

On the other hand, New York does not seem to recognize an “internal possession” theory of possession (e.g. using an elevated blood alcohol level as the sole evidence in proving that a minor had been in possession of alcohol).  I could not find a case specifically rejecting this theory, but the NIH agrees with this assessment.

So merely having cocaine in his bloodstream may not be enough to prove that the witness possessed cocaine.  Of course, the prosecution could impose immunity on Reese and compel him to testify, but that seems unlikely.

III. The Physician/Patient Privilege

New York, like many jurisdictions, privileges certain communication between a physician and a patient from disclosure.  N.Y. CPLR § 4504:

Unless the patient waives the privilege, a person authorized to practice medicine, registered professional nursing, licensed practical nursing, dentistry, podiatry or chiropractic shall not be allowed to disclose any information which he acquired in attending a patient in a professional capacity, and which was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity.

Knowing that the witness had potentially adulterated cocaine in his system would probably be necessary to enable a physician to attend to the witness in a professional capacity.  So given that, it’s difficult to see how the police would ever learn about what happened, assuming neither Reese nor the witness talked.

IV. Conclusion

We don’t typically follow Person of Interest, but this episode had a lot of interesting legal issues, even if some of them turned out to be moot points (if you’ve seen the episode or read the plot synopsis you’ll know what I mean).

14 Comments

Posted in criminal law, evidence, mailbag, television, torts