Does the legal system have any provision for sentient non-human life? For instance the US’s 14th Amendment says ‘Any person… born…’ Is Godzilla a person? He is presumably sueable if and only if he is?
I can’t fathom how the word GOD got worked into legal jargon. God is different things to different people. What if I’m an athiest?Or what if I think that everything is an act of god? Couldn’t they just use the word NATURE instead? I think they chose the word GOD for its vague qualities.
Sometimes it is termed an “act of nature” or “vis major” or “force majeure.” “Act of God” is just a holdover from ye olde English law, when God’s existence was just taken as a certainty. Remeber, this whole separation of church and state thing is a fairly recent innovation.
Not just thinking! In Destroy All Monsters the big green guy could talk too! (Admittedly he spoke Monsterese, but apparently monsterese is fairly complex since it seemed to have actual words and structure).
The other problem with suing Godzilla is that, as we found out in Godzilla 2000, there’s a little Godzilla in all of us. That means we’d have to sue ourselves too!
Couldn’t Kenny, that little kid with the tight shorts and the baby sunhat, be held partially responsible? Seems to me he was always calling up Godzilla.
[hijack]
Anyone else think this should be pravnik’s new sig line?
[/hijack]
Purely in the interests of keeping this thread grounded in fact, I feel I must point out that Kenny was the avatar of the Giant Turtle Gamera.
Who wants to be the first to serve legal papers to an angry, 500 foot high fire breathing reptile?
What does John Ashcroft have to do with this?
I have nothing to add to this discussion, except to note one thing. History shows again and again how nature points up the folly of man…GODZILLA!
Dunno about sig line, but I sure do think it’s the Best. Disclaimer. Ever.
Well, okay, if you really think so.
There we go.
Just a nitpick: wouldn’t the style of the case be Tokyo vs. Godzilla? After all, Godzilla would not be filing suit over the damage he caused.
It would be far likelier for Godzilla to sue the U.S. for, IIRC, it was irresponsible nuclear testing which caused him to hatch. On the other hand, “wrongful life” cases have never, as yet, succeeded that I know of.
Insurance policies likely would not cover destruction by a 500-foot tall radioactive monster. For one thing, policies generally specify the hazards they are covering rather narrowly, and it seems unlikely that any underwriter would have had the foresight to include Godzilla under the sources of casualty covered, at least prior to the first movie.
Secondly, insurance policies often exclude coverage for damage from events such as riots, and it seems likely that a Godzilla attack would receive similar treatment. Possibly, though, the Japanese government, under pressure from the electorate, would initiate a government-subsidized insurance program for monster attacks, much as governments do for drop disasters and floods.
Oh, jeez, now I’ve done it and been mentioned in some-one else’s sig. I guess this means that “stealth mode” is over? 
This is surely a sign of the Apocalypse: banhattan (the avatar of manny that closes threads and makes heads roll) has witnessed an IMHO thread, lo, it is mundane and pointless unto the highest MPSIMSian reaches, and demands little, if any, thought to participate, and he has seen fit to keep it open and here in the Intellectual Zion of General Questions.
Glory, the Return of Cecil is upon us! The Researcher Shall Awaken!
[sub]When resurrect, bring pie.[/sub]
Wouldn’t Tokyo vs. Godzilla be tried in a Japanese court? If so the outcome is obvious: the trial will drag on for decades until it’s long forgotten and the original plaintiffs have died of old age. Like that subway sarin gas attack - the trial is still going on. (Some members have been sentenced, but not the cult leader.)
It’s a misnomer.
It’s actually a peninsula.
Brought to you, originally, by Slipster
[q]It would be far likelier for Godzilla to sue the U.S. for, IIRC, it was irresponsible nuclear testing which caused him to hatch. On the other hand, “wrongful life” cases have never, as yet, succeeded that I know of. [/q]
“Wrongful life” perhaps not, but could he file a paternity suit against the U.S. for child support on his own behalf? At least until he was 18.
Goodness knows, I wouldn’t want to have to pay for those braces.
See, this and the “sentient being as a person” issue are gonna be key. Many insurance policies exlude coverage for “intentional criminal acts.” You get yourself murdered, you can sue your murderer (assuming he has any assets), but neither his nor your homeowner’s policy will pay.
Thus, we must ask ourselves whether Godzilla has the mens rea for murder, arson and criminal destruction of property, and whether his actions were criminal or merely negligent.
We could hope to attach Godzilla’s potential future earnings from, say, book and movie deals. I know a couple of entertainment lawyers that would eat him for lunch in contract negotiations.