Venom Unleashed: The Legal Complexities of Mass Torts and the Enigma of Symbiotic Liability

The convergence of pop culture and jurisprudence takes centre stage with the arrival of “Venom,” the 2018 sci-fi film that thrusts the infamous archenemy of Spiderman into the cinematic spotlight. Directed by Ruben Fleischer, this artistic endeavour garnered global attention and substantial revenue, generating thought-provoking questions about tortious liability within the realm of mass torts. In particular, it forces us to grapple with the elusive notion of symbiotic liability, a concept fraught with legal intricacies.

The Genesis of Venom

Originating from the pages of the comic Secret Wars on Battle world, Venom, a captivating symbiote, undergoes a transformative encounter with Spiderman, resulting in the iconic shift from the web-slinger’s classic red and blue attire to a menacing black ensemble. The cinematic adaptation in Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man 3” maintains the core essence of this narrative.

This character originates as an extraterrestrial entity devoid of a fixed form, yet possessing its own consciousness. Essentially a parasite, Venom requires a host organism for its survival. Upon attaching itself to a host, it undergoes a biochemical alteration of the host’s form, effectively seizing control and utilizing the host body as its own. However, the character’s journey in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is reinvented in “The Venom,” (movie) providing a fresh perspective. Here, the Life Foundation inadvertently introduces a peculiar extraterrestrial substance to Earth, setting in motion a series of investigations involving six diverse yet compositionally identical creatures.

These symbiotes necessitate a living host to survive and operate, a crucial detail unbeknownst to the Life Foundation. Extensive trials involving indigent individuals culminate in numerous fatalities due to the symbiote’s incompatibility with the human body. However, the symbiote escapes and embarks on a journey of host-hopping until it finds harmony with Eddie Brock, a prominent journalist, leaving chaos in its wake. After breaking free from the facility, the creature known as Venom embarks on a journey to acclimate to different hosts. Along the way, it connects with various alternate hosts, resulting in their suffering as they lose consciousness and endure physical harm.

As the narrative unfolds, additional symbiotic entities seize control of unsuspecting individuals, triggering the destruction of property and sparking widespread chaos. These situations grab the interest of legal analysts, as they introduce a complex landscape of tort law. This character has essentially triggered a cascade of tort-related challenges, much like the metaphorical opening of Pandora’s box within the legal domain.

A Probe Into Tortious Liability

To comprehend tortious liability in this context, we must first grasp its fundamental definition. Section 2(m) of the Limitation Act 1963 defines tortious liability as a “civil wrong” that occurs outside the realms of contract or trust violations. Esteemed legal scholars such as Winfield and Salmond have expounded upon this definition, emphasizing that tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty ordained by law, intended for the benefit of society at large, and remediable through actions seeking unliquidated damages. The concept tortious liability had been elaborated upon by Winfield and Salmond in detail. Winfield stated that “tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by the law: such duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages^[1]”. Furthermore, Salmond states that “tort is a civil wrong for which remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages, and which is not exclusively the breach of contract, or the breach of trust, or other merely equitable obligation^[2]” Adding on  Pullock states “Tort consists in some act or omission, whereby one person is prejudiced in his person or property, and another person derives an advantage from the act or omission, and the act or omission is an infringement of a legal right vested in the former and a corresponding legal duty resting on the latter.”

If we carefully examine Pollock’s framework it comprises five distinct elements, each constituting a pivotal facet of the tortuous construct:

1. Act or Omission: At the crux of a tort lies the genesis within an individual’s action or its conspicuous absence, thereby encapsulating the realm of both commission and omission. This signifies that the contours of tortuous liability can be traced back to deliberate acts as well as instances where refraining from action leads to prejudicial consequences. The best example is the case of Glasgow Corp. v Taylor^[3] (1922), there was a public park managed by a corporation. They didn’t put up a fence around a tree with poisonous fruits to keep children away. Unfortunately, a child picked and ate the poisonous fruits and passed away. The corporation was found responsible for not taking the necessary action to prevent this and was held accountable for their neglect.
2. Harm: In the orchestration of a tortuous event, the axis of harm or detriment holds profound significance. This pertains to the tangible repercussions emerging from the act or omission, which manifest as injury, damage, or impairment inflicted upon an individual’s person or property. This nexus between the action and ensuing harm forms an elemental cornerstone.
3. Against Legal Right: The core of a tort materializes in its transgression of legal rights vested within the affected party. It underscores the encroachment upon established legal privileges owned by the aggrieved individual. This delineates the pivotal role of the law in defining and safeguarding the entitlements of individuals against infringement.
4. Parallel Legal Duty: Concurrently intertwined with the concept of legal rights is the concept of legal duties. For a tort to crystallize, the implicated party is bound by a coexisting legal duty that aligns with the protection of these rights. This interplay of rights and duties cultivates an environment where adherence to legal obligations is pivotal in averting the transgression of another’s entitlements.
5. Advantage to Another Party: As a riveting culmination, the embodiment of tortuous liability reverberates with the ramification of benefiting another individual or entity. The repercussions of the wrongful act or omission culminate in conferring an advantage or gain upon a party distinct from the aggrieved. This dimension amplifies the intricacies of tort law by introducing the element of unjust enrichment.

Pollock’s taxonomy not only provides a systematic foundation for comprehending torts but also underscores the intricate interplay between action, consequence, legal entitlements, and corresponding duties.  Adding on Prosser states that “A tort is a violation of a duty imposed by the general law, resulting in damage to another.”  Prosser’s discerning perspective accentuates the pivotal notion of duty transgression as the fulcrum of tortuous liability. He expounded that within the intricate tapestry of legal constructs, a distinct spotlight shines upon the imposition of specific duties upon individuals.

In instances where these legally ordained obligations are breached, and this breach subsequently precipitates tangible harm or damage, the resultant transaction crystallizes into what is categorically known as a tort. This notion extends the legal discourse beyond mere actions or consequences, delving into the intricate underpinnings of duty and its consequent violation.

Prosser underscores the intricate fabric of legal relationships where obligations are not just ethical but also bestowed with legal sanctity. Thus, the breach of such duties, when intertwined with tangible harm, forges the foundational bedrock upon which the edifice of tort law is firmly erected.

Fixing-up Liability

Within this complex narrative, several distinct entities warrant meticulous examination of their respective liabilities:

1. Life Foundation: As the custodian of the symbiote, the Life Foundation, under Mr. Carlton Drake’s leadership, shoulders significant responsibility for introducing an unknown and potentially hazardous creature into Earth’s atmosphere, albeit with limited understanding. The actions of the symbiote, which include trespass to the body and inflicting nervous shock on individuals, undoubtedly invoke principles of tort law. The concept of mass torts becomes relevant as the symbiote’s global actions harm countless individuals in similar ways.
2. Eddie Brock: As a host of the symbiote, Eddie Brock experiences violations of bodily privacy, trespasses into his corporeal realm, and incurs damage to his physical property. Despite the symbiote’s influence, Eddie remains accountable for his actions, including unauthorized entry into the Life Foundation’s research facility and participation in criminal activities alongside Venom. By harbouring a dangerous substance and failing to extricate himself from its influence, Mr. Brock may be held liable under tort law.
3. Venom – The Symbiote: Venom, possessing autonomous intellect and consciousness, functions as an independent entity with significant influence over its human hosts. However, existing legal frameworks primarily target human or corporate entities, rendering the concept of legal liability for the symbiote complex. Traditional legal instruments typically exclude non-human entities such as viruses, bacteria, and fungi from punitive measures, thereby shielding Venom from conventional legal repercussions. Consequently, the symbiote remains an enigmatic outlier, immune to traditional legal accountability.

Conclusion

The enigmatic world of Venom underscores the intricate tapestry of legal complexities, where mass torts and the enigma of symbiotic accountability converge. As we navigate the legal ramifications of Venom’s actions, the film challenges our understanding of applying legal principles to extraordinary circumstances involving non-human entities. Despite negligence on the part of the Life Foundation and Eddie Brock’s symbiotic influence, the symbiote, as a non-human entity, eludes traditional legal consequences. The enigma of Venom’s liability encapsulates the complex interplay between the fantastical realm of pop culture and the tenets of a concrete legal system, inviting contemplation of the evolving boundaries of juridical comprehension.

References

^[1] Paul Mitchell, Definition and theory, in A History of Tort Law 1900–1950 13–36 (2015).

^[2] Davies, Christine. The Modern Law Review 33, no. 3 (1970): 334–37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1094230.

^[3]  1 A.C 44

This article has been contributed by Sistla Naveen Teja, an assistant professor at GITAM University.