Could Superman be sued for trashing Metropolis? Lawyer weighs in

SUPERHEROES are prone to destroying cities during their fights for justice. But, just how legally responsible would they be for the damage?

Forget Batman’s concern, you have bigger problems to worry about.

THERE is something awesome about completing a law degree, becoming a licenced solicitor and then using your skills to determine the hypothetical legal ramifications of comic book superheroes.

This is exactly what James Daily did in his online blog Law and the Multiverse.

Speaking on Episode 161 of the Geek’s Guide to the Galaxy podcast, the comic book fanatic described how the idea for the blog originated while he was at a dinner party.

“At some point during the dinner conversation, the subject turned to Superman — as these things so often do — and the observation was made that if everybody on Krypton had X-ray vision, then either they would all line their walls with lead or they’d have to have very different privacy laws,” he told the podcast.

So how did a lawyer end up debating the merits of superhero behaviour?

It was part-way through a dinner conversation one day that a friend of Mr Daily suggested he make a blog focusing on the legalities of superheroes. Just like that, the project was born.

Since its inception the blog has explored many issues such as what happens legally when a character comes back from the dead and if mutants are indeed a protected class.

However, while talking on the podcast, Mr Daily explored the legalities behind one aspect from the trailer of the upcoming Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice film.

The trailer revealed Batman was less than impressed with the damage left by Superman after his epic battle with General Zod in Man of Steel.

While being on the bad side of the Dark Knight was intimidating enough, Mr Daily believed this was nothing compared to legal repercussions he would face following his reckless behaviour.

Mr Daily said if Superman was to be sued for trashing Metropolis, the outcome would not be favourable as prosecutors would argue he could easily have chosen a more appropriate location to confront his nemesis.

“I don’t recall any particularly good reason why it needed to happen there and why it couldn’t have happened in, say, Antarctica,” he said.

Mr Daily said if Superman was to try and claim self-defence, it would likely be thrown out the window because he did not exercise a reasonable level of care while in battle.

“What you can’t necessarily do is take a machine gun and just spray bullets wildly into a crowd in an effort to strike the person who’s threatening you,” he said.

Mr Daily said Superman’s best hope would be to use the sudden-peril doctrine to try and convince the court he should be held to a lower standard of care because of the emergency situation.

Alternatively, he suggested Superman use the defence of justification to argue if he hadn’t engaged in battle with Zod, the outcome would have been far more drastic.

Joining Mr Daily on the podcast was associate teaching professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law Brad Desnoyer.

He suggested Superman might be better to shift the blame.

“He could say that Zod and the other Kryptonians were contributorily negligent,” he said.

“And so he’d only be on the hook for part of the damage and the other part you’d have to get from Zod.”

While Mr Daily agreed this could help lessen the blow, he said Superman would still be facing a hefty bill.

“Even if you could say that Zod and the rest are seventy-five per cent liable, Superman is twenty-five per cent liable for a hundred billion dollars in property damage,” he said.