Tort Law Theory—Foreseeability and Negligence

Analyze the James v. Meow Media case, and then develop a position. Present your ideas based on the following:

The elements of negligence

What was missing in the words that prevented the court from finding this company at fault

If the court had ruled this company was at fault, how would the ruling affect other companies in that industry?

CASE 5.2 Negligence James v. Meow Media, Inc.

300 F.3d 683, Web 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 16185 (2002) United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

“Our inquiry is whether the deaths of James, Steger, and Hadley were the reasonably foreseeable result of the defendants’ creation and distribution of their games, movie, and Internet sites.”

—Judge Boggs

Facts

Michael Carneal was a 14-year-old freshman student at Heath High School in Paducah, Kentucky. Carneal regularly played the violent interactive video and computer games “Doom,” “Quake,” “Castle Wolfenstein,” “Rampage,” “Nightmare Creatures,” “Mech Warrior,” “Resident Evil,” and “Final Fantasy.” These games involved the player shooting virtual opponents with computer guns and other weapons. Carneal also watched videotaped movies, including one called The Basketball Diaries, in which a high-school-student protagonist dreams of killing his teacher and several of his fellow classmates. On Dec. 1, 1997, Carneal took a .22-caliber pistol and five shotguns into the lobby of Heath High School and shot several of his fellow students, killing three and wounding many others. The three students killed were Jessica James, Kayce Steger, and Nicole Hadley.

The parents of the three dead children (“James”) sued the producers and distributors of the violent video games and movies that Carneal had watched previous to the shooting. The parents sued to recover damages for wrongful death, alleging that the defendants were negligent in producing and distributing such games and movies to Carneal. The U.S. District Court applied Kentucky law and held that the defendants did not owe or breach a duty to the plaintiffs and therefore were not liable for negligence. The plaintiffs appealed.

Issue

Did the defendant video and movie producers and distributors owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs by selling and licensing violent video games and movies to Carneal, who killed the three children?

Language of the Court

Kentucky courts have held that the determination of whether a duty of care exists is whether the harm to the plaintiff resulting from the defendant’s negligence was “foreseeable.” Kentucky courts have struggled with the formless nature of this inquiry. Our inquiry is whether the deaths of James, Steger, and Hadley were the reasonably foreseeable result of the defendants’ creation and distribution of their games, movie, and Internet sites.

It appears simply impossible to predict that these games, movie, and Internet sites would incite a young person to violence. We find that it is simply too far a leap from shooting characters on a video screen (an activity undertaken by millions) to shooting people in a classroom(an activity undertaken by a handful, at most) for Carneal’s actions to have been reasonably foreseeable to the manufacturers of the media that Carneal played and viewed. Carneal’s reaction was not a normal reaction.

Indeed, Carneal is not a normal person. Individuals are generally entitled to assume that third parties will not commit intentional criminal acts.

Decision

The Court of Appeals held that the defendant video game and movie producers and distributors did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs by selling and licensing violent video games and movies to Carneal, who murdered the three children.