How Did Clark Have A Duty To Rescue Steve?

Question 1:

Issue: Did Clark have a duty to rescue Steve?

Common law rules have generally established that a defendant does not have a duty to rescue an individual without a “special relationship” or unless the defendant did something to cause the harm (Chutkow Lecture, March 7). “Special relationship” is a general rule set forth by the common law due to the difficulty in defining each and every case. As a result, “special relationships” describe relationships such as those between a parent and child, spouses, etc (Chutkow Lecture, March 7).

In order to successfully argue that Clark had a duty to rescue Steve, it must be proven that the two had a special relationship or that Clark did something to cause the harm. Plaintiff could argue

that Clark had a special relationship with Steve, and therefore had a duty to rescue him because Steve and Clark were roommates. Moreover, their roommate relationship is the reason why Clark asked Steve to go to the animal park with him in the first place. In the case of Lundy v. Adamar of N.J. Inc. (1994), a casino owner was held liable because he had a duty to rescue a patron in his establishment who was suffering from a heart attack. Thus, if the owner of an establishment has a duty to rescue a patron in need, the relationship between Clark and Steve as roommates is sufficient to meet the requirement of “special relationship.”
Plaintiff could also argue that the defendant’s actions caused the harm to the decedent.

Before leaving to go to the animal park, Clark convinced Steve to go with him, though who drove the car there was unanswered. After arriving at the animal park, Clark taunted Steve to the point where he convinced Steve to jump in the exhibit and grab the Komodo Dragon. Clark also knew that Komodo Dragons were vicious, powerful, easily provoked, and possess poisonous venom. Plaintiff could argue that Steve would not have jumped into the exhibit, or even been at the animal park in the first place, if it had not been for Clark’s actions. Common law has established that “First...if the defendant has a special relationship with the plaintiff, it has a duty to aid, as held in Lundy v. Adamar of N.J., Inc... Second, if the defendant caused the plaintiff’s harm, even innocently, it has a duty to aid” (Law for Society, page 141). Therefore, they could argue that Clark’s actions not only put Steve in danger, but explain why Steve was bit and injected by the Komodo Dragon’s poisonous venom, and ultimately meant that Clark had a duty to rescue

Steve.
On the other hand, the defense could argue that Clark did not have a duty to rescue Steve because there was no special relationship and that the defendant’s actions did not cause the decedent’s death. Clark and Steve were roommates but that relationship was not enough. In the case of Hurley v. Eddingfield (1901), a doctor was held not liable for the death of a patient because although he is a doctor, he was not in a doctor-patient relationship with the decedent. Therefore, defense could argue that a roommate relationship is not sufficient enough to be considered a “special relationship” under the law.
Defense could also argue that Clark’s actions did not lead to Steve’s death because Steve should have behaved reasonably.

Clark taunted Steve and Clark’s words were enough to convince Steve to grab the dragon, which resulted in his death. In the case of Yania v. Bigan (1959), the Court decided that the defendant would not be held liable when he “invited decedent onto his land, taunted him to jump into a water-filled mining pit, and did nothing to save him from drowning” (Law for Society, page 140). In other words, the defendant’s persuasive words made the plaintiff perform a task that resulted in the plaintiff’s death. Clark’s actions were simply verbal persuasion and it was up to Steve to ultimately behave reasonably. The Court decided that “the mere fact that Bigan saw Yania in a position of peril in the water imposed upon him no legal, although a moral, obligation or duty to go to his rescue unless Bigan was legally responsible, in whole or in part, for placing Yania in the perilous position” (Yania v. Bigan, 1959). The defense could argue that the same rule applies where “it was the performance of that act and not the defendant’s conduct which caused the husband’s death,” (Yania v. Bigan, 1959), and thus, Clark did not have a duty to rescue

Steve.
Question 2:
Issue: Did Clark violate the Theft of an Endangered Species statute?
The Theft of an Endangered Species statute in Nirvana states, “Whoever takes or carries away an endangered species from its owner without the owner’s consent and with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of said endangered species shall be subject to no less than one (1) year imprisonment.”
One possible defense argument that might be raised for this charge is duress. Requirements to prove duress under the Model Penal Code are as follows: (1) the defendant believes threat to self or others is real, (2) the threat is imminent (3) there is no alternative such as escape, and (4) the defendant did not recklessly put self in the situation (Chutkow Lecture, March 14). The defendant believed that there was a threat to himself as well as others if he did not take the Komodo Dragon to bring back to Jimmy the Toucan. Clark believed that if he failed to do so, Jimmy was going to send his associate, Victor Ray, to hurt him. Clark believed that the threat was imminent because at the time of these events, he was suffering from hallucinations, paranoia, and obsessive behavior after taking 10 Awake pills, though it remains unclear where he got the pills. Due to the side effects, Clark believed that Victor Ray was hiding outside his room, as well as following him and Steve on their way to the animal park. There was no alternative such as escape by that point because he already owed Jimmy the Toucan $75,000 and was already warned about what would happen if he was unable to repay his debt. The defendant also did not recklessly put himself in this situation because he was acting in accordance with the threat from Jimmy the Toucan. However, this argument also has a weakness in the fourth part of proving duress. Since Clark decided to participate in illegal gambling, one could argue that his debt accrual is his own fault. Therefore, the defense would find it difficult to prove that the defendant did not recklessly put himself in the situation.
Another possible defense argument against this charge is mistake of law. Clark was unaware of the Komodo Dragon’s endangered species status and therefore, the defense could argue that Clark should not be held responsible for this crime. In the case of Rex v. ESOP (1836), the defendant’s attorney argued that the defendant came from a country where the offence is not a law and thus, did not know that what he did was a crime. However, this argument may be weak considering that mistake of law is not considered a viable defense. The Judge in that case decided that lack of knowledge about a law “does not amount to a defence here,” (Chutkow Lecture, March 14). Criminal law treats mistake of fact differently than mistake of law.
A third possible defense is insanity through the irresistible impulse test. The irresistible impulse test “excuses criminal conduct that is the result of a delusional compulsion or overpowering urge, when that compulsion was brought about by mental disease or defect” (Law for Society, pages 164 - 165). Since Clark was under the influence of 10 Awake pills that night and the following morning, the defendant was in a delusional state. This delusional state heightened his desire to retrieve a Komodo Dragon to repay his debt, but also to potentially help cure his mother, who suffers from a degenerative brain disorder. Clark’s genes in addition to the influence of the pills can arguably serve as a defense to excuse his behavior. The strengths of this argument include the brain disorder that the defendant’s mother has in combination with the pill’s influence on him, which in combination led to his overpowering urge to steal the Komodo Dragon. One weakness for this argument is that Clark was not diagnosed prior to these events with having a mental disease or defect. With reference to Clark’s potential of mental disease or defect due to genes, the age/time period when Clark’s mother began showing signs of her brain disorder is also unanswered in this case.
Issue: Did Clark violate the Animal Cruelty statute?
The Animal Cruelty statute in Nirvana states “Whoever causes the death of an animal, either directly or indirectly, shall be subject to a fine of no less than $20,000”
The defense may argue that the defendant was justified in his actions, out of necessity, and thus, should not be held responsible for the death of the Komodo Dragon. In order to prove necessity, the defense must prove that the defendant believed he needed to prevent harm to himself or others, that the harm prevented more than the harm committed, and there was no legislative intent against “saving” (Chutkow Lecture, March 14). Arguing a necessity defense also means arguing the existence of natural forces that required this behavior. The defendant believed he needed to prevent harm to himself or others when he saw the mudslide coming down the hill. The mudslide was rapidly approaching, the natural force that required his action, and a crowd of people were trapped. Clark reacted by using his car, with the Dragon inside, as a means of diverting the mudslide. The Dragon asphyxiated as a result of Clark’s actions, but the harm prevented (killing a crowd of people, himself, and the Dragon) was more than the harm committed (death of the Dragon). Lastly, defense could argue that there was no legislative intent against “saving” or, there was no other legal way to escape the harm because there were only seconds between when Clark jumped out of his car to save himself and when the mudslide completely covered his car. One weakness for this argument is that Clark, by using his car to divert the mudslide, may not have directly caused the death of the Dragon, but did so indirectly. Thus, his indirect actions means that he may still be found responsible.
Issue: Did Clark violate the Destruction of Property statute?
The Destruction of Property statute in Nirvana states, “Whoever, without the consent of the owner, damages or destroys a building or structure shall be subject to no less than 6 months imprisonment.”
One possible defense argument that might be raised for this criminal charge is also necessity. In this instance, the defendant believed that he needed to prevent harm to others because a mudslide, a natural force, was rapidly coming down the hill. In an effort to prevent harm, Clark used his car to crash into the ticket booth and divert the mudslide away from a crowd of people. In doing so, Clark prevented the death of the people in the crowd as well as himself. Lastly, there was no other legal means by which Clark could have been able to divert the mudslide away, and saving lives. One weakness against this argument is that one’s genuine belief in their actions being proper, may not be enough to absolve them from blame.
A second possible defense argument is mistake of fact. “Generally speaking, if an actor makes a mistake of fact that unbeknownst to him renders his conduct unlawful, the law will generally not punish his actions unless the mistake is unreasonable” (Law for Society, page 168). Thus, defense could argue that Clark did not know that his actions were unlawful, especially with the intent to save himself and others. He possessed the actus rea for the crime, but lacked the mens rea, or any intent to destroy a building. This argument is weak in regard to the statute not mentioning the actor’s intent.