Legion World Forums LEGION OUTPOST Mission Monitor Board Quislet's Super Law Firm...of Space!

Yay! 500th post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, Quis rocks!

I liked your robot better, you milestone whore, you.

So Quis! How about giving your lawyerly perspective on a few recent Legion-y situations?

1. The Lightspeed Vanguard appears (unbidden?) to rescue a ship from certain peril. They are successful. They then present the person in charge with a bill. When the bill isn't paid, the LsV then appropriates the ship's cargo in lieu of the cash.

2. As Ayla tells the assemblage in issue 26, she and her twin brother Garth both had the "job" of keeping surveillance on their older brother, who was said to have a severe psychological disorder. (Who assigned this job is unknown at this time. Whether or not older brother had reached the age of majority at time of the incident in question is also unknown at this time. The twins were clearly minors.) IN this incident, the presence of the two younger siblings led to all three being gravely injured; while all three survived and eventually recovered following weeks in intensive care, there could very well have been fatalities if the oldest sibling hadn't managed to transport them all to a medical facility.

Just how many lawsuits could we possibly have here? Yikes!


Man, those Ranzz kids always have something going, don't they?

This is interesting and I think there are a couple of different aspects to look at.

First, could the LSV charge for rescue services? I would say "yes" after all that is how bodyguards make a living. But, the bodyguard makes a contract before performing his/her services. In this case, there is no pre-exisiting contract between the LSV and the owners of the cargo ship. The LSV freely provided their services without the owners of the cargo ship asking for those services. So, just like you can use the return address stickers the Easter Seals sends you without having to make a donation, the owners of the cargo ship does not have a legal obligation to pay the LSV for a rescue.

However, what if the LSV (or the LEgion for that matter) incurred expenses in performing the rescue? Would the person rescued be required to pay those expenses? There is some debate in the real world about this issue, particularly when dealing with people who put themselves into dangerous situations (i.e. mountain climbers) that could require rescues. What do you think about that?

Now for that last part. Say that there is an agreement between the LSV and the owners of the cargo ship for rescue services. The LSV's only means of recourse is to sue the owners for breach of contract. If successful, the court may order that property be sold in order to pay the judgement. However, the owners would have a counterclaim for any damages the LSV caused to the owners' property during the rescue. If the LSV (and the Legion) did not charge for their services, then they would be covered for liability under any existing Good Samaritan laws. But the LSV could not take the law into their own hands and take the cargo themselves. That is stealing and saying that the person you took from owes you money is not a valid defense.

I'll have to re-read this issue. I would say that the "job" was one of familial duty rather than an actual caregiver role. And so, there doesn't seem to be any basis for any lawsuits.

This was a case about battery which is the intentional harmful or offensive toucing. In its simplest form a battery would be a punch in the nose. The person intends to hit you, you are "touched", and you are harmed. Those are the three elements of battery. The elements are satisfied even if the person committing the battery isn't the one who "touched" you, but instead threw something at you or fired a bullet at you. So even though they have not technically "touched" you, they would be liable. But if they just shook their fist at you, there would be no "touching" and thus no battery. So is blowing smoke in someone's face a "touching"? The court said "Yes". Smoke is made up of tiny particles of matter and that those particles of matter hitting Mr. Reynold's face constituted a "touching". And even though the touching wasn't harmful, it was offensive. And because it was intentional (rather than say O'Blowhard blowing the smoke to the side, not knowing Mr. Reynolds wasn't there) you have all three elements of the tort of battery.

In regards to WONK, they would not be liable (even if they had no policy as Kent suggested) because employers are not liable for the INTENTIONAL torts of their employrs even if performed in the course of their employment. They would be liable for acts of neglegence which are not intentional torts.

Quislet Esq.,

I have a question regarding my recent trip to Earth. I was in New York when a friend suggested we go to London England for lunch. Being a tourist I consulted Google Maps' Get directions feature for directions.

I asked for directions from Broadway to Picadilly Pl in London and the system gave me this output.

1. Head northeast on Broadway toward W 94th St 0.1 mi 1 min
2. Turn left at W 96th St 0.2 mi 1 min

Skipped to Step 10 Through Connecticut and Mass

10. Merge onto I-84 E Partial toll road
Entering Massachusetts 40.7 mi 38 mins
11. Take the exit onto I-90 E/Mass Pike/Massachusetts Turnpike toward N.H.-Maine/Boston Partial toll road 56.0 mi 56 mins
12. Take exit 24 A-B-C on the left toward I-93 N/Concord NH/S Station/I-93 S/Quincy 0.4 mi 1 min
13. Merge onto Atlantic Ave 0.8 mi 3 mins
14. Turn right at Central St 0.1 mi
15. Turn right at Long Wharf 0.1 mi

16. Swim across the Atlantic Ocean 3,462 mi 29 days 0 hours

Arrive at Le-Havre France and continue through Normandy through the Chunnel into England. (48 steps)

65. Turn left at Vine St 75 ft

My question is. If I were foolish enough to attempt step 16 could I sue Google because the Maps service is supposed to be an authority on giving direction?

I fear for your bar membership. The torts, they should be a-flyin'.

Let's figure the Winath system of jurisprudence to be similar to what we have in the US at this time.

AYLA & GARTH (or, more likely, a parent/guardian or another adult acting on their behalf, because they are minors) could file against someone or something (their parents? a Dapartment of Health or some organization that either by omission or comission led to A&G being somewhere where they shouldn't have been?) for their medical bills (if not already covered) and pain & suffering?

MEKT (or, again, an adult on his behalf if he was still a minor) could do the same.

THE RANZZ PARENTS or GUARDIANS (the elder Ranzzes haven't been mentioned) might also hit the govt. that subtly or outright encourages this sort of thing and thus fails to provide trained care for a citizen deemed to be mentally ill and dangerous (if only to himself). The kids were out of commission for awhile, unable to help around the farm.

MEKT and/or THE TWINS/PARENTS (or another party, possibly depending on who owned the vehicle in question?) could go after the cruiser manufacturer. Malfunction due to a relatively small amount (maybe 200 lbs.) of weight? Hello, failsafes?

I could also see any Solo-Rights activist groups(such as may exist on Winath) or perhaps progressive (from some points of view) psycho-medical professionals filing actions -- even if the filers don't expect the action to go very far, they might do so anyway if only to draw attention to written or unwritten policy and to stimulate public discussion of the issue.

That's not to mention possible criminal charges of endangering the welfare of children.


I'll go watch some TV, maybe come up with some more.

Now, if Earth and the UP survives the Dominator attack/invasion, what do you think Mekt's chances are at collecting back pay?

No, because dead people can't sue.

Pretty good.

Ya-hoo! Mekt's buyin' the space-doughnuts!

Well, I re-read the issue.

Now in order to sue (presumably this would be a case of negligence) you need to have someone who has a duty towards the plaintiff and breached that duty. Who here had a duty? The only ones I see are Mr. & Mrs. Ranzz towards their children to not endanger them. Was this duty breached? I don't think so.

What we have is someone (Mekt) who has a "death wish", as per Ayla. Is this the same as being suicidal or mentally ill? I don't think so. If Mekt is not mentally ill, then Mr. & Mrs. Ranzz do not have a duty to have Mekt committed. And if Mekt is an adult, then he is responsible for his own actions.

Regarding Garth & Ayla, Ayla again says that it was their "job" to look after Mekt. Again I see this as more of a family obligation. i.e. make sure your brother doesn't hurt himself. Such a request by the parents cannot be construed as to include the instruction to endanger yourself in order to keep Mekt safe.

Regarding a suit against the government, you would need to show that 1) Mekt was a dnager to himself or others, 2) that the government was on notice, and 3) that the government took no action. From the facts we have, such a case cannot be made. Even if a case could be made any Soloist group on Winath could not initiate them as they would not have standing to do so. They could filed amici (or Friend of the Court) briefs.

Regarding the manufacturer of the ship. Alya states that the cruiser did not malfunction, but that the additional weight of her and Garth threw off Mekt's calculations. Presumably, this is what caused the ship to interact with the energy field of Korbal and that this interaction is what caused the power loss.

Note: not all accidents lead to lawsuits.

Do you want your own holo show or not?

Not if I have to make things up.

I do love Judge Judy.

Well, then make sure to snag some extra space-doughnuts. Ya can't eat principles.

PS: Yeah, Judge Judy knows what's what.

They can if they've retained the services of Wolff & Byrd, Counselors Of The Macabre!

www.supernaturallaw.com


--------------------
"Beware the Creatures of the Night -- They Have LAWYERS!!"

Hey, Quis. How can I become a partner in this firm?

Uh Oh, I smell the hourly rates going up.

Dear Quislet Esq.......

I am running for leader.
Is there anyway I can legally force....ummmm, persude people to vote for me?

Do you mean Quislet's Super Law Office of Space or Wolff & Byrd, Counselors Of The Macabre?

If you do mean this law office, you would start as a junior associate, performing all the lowly tasks I don't want to do, like all the work. If the office budget has sufficient funds (aka I picked the right ponies this week) we can outfit you with your own office. Then with the right amount of brown-nosing, you might make partner sometime before the next century.

Or I might just say "Welcome to the firm, Partner!"

A thoughtful campaign platform is one means of legally persuading people to vote for you. Appealing to their baser instincts is another.

Quis...can the LMB sue Gary Concorde to get Stoopid cat back? If so, would you take the case?

Interesting Question

Well that would depend on whether Stoopid Cat is a legally recognized sentient or property. IN RL pets are considered property. Here on Legion World, that might be different. After all Stoopid Cat was Deputy Leader for a turn.

If Stoopid Cat is property, only his owner (which I believe is either Abin Quark or Pagan Lass - possibly Everyday Girl) could sue to recover the property. This would also assume that Gary Concord was indeed the one holding the property.

If on the other hand, Stoopid Cat is a legally recognized sentient, then the best option is to have the Security Department track down the kidnapped party. After which, Stoopid Cat could sue for false imprisonment.