Tort liability elements:

 The presence of a duty. This may be as simple as the duty to take all reasonable
precautions to prevent the injury of someone around you.
 The breach of duty. The defendant must have failed in his or her duty.
 An injury occurred. You received a physical, mental, or emotional injury.
 The breach of duty caused the injury.
RKO General Case:
 Fact pattern in RKO General
 Fact pattern in Parlymon
 How that fact pattern is different and similar to this one
 Issues in RKO general
 Issues in Parlymon
Discussion points:
 Was there any foreseeability by Gormint that the events that followed
would be the ones that will be a result of their game?
 Even if there was an element of foreseeability, does there have to be an
element of incitement that has to be present for a liability to occur?
 INDUSTRY PRACTISE/STANDARD:
Does the video game industry have a power to determine the violence ratings of
its own games in conjunction with the industry's known marketing strategies
relative to child consumers?
 Is there a connection between exposure to violent video games and
harmful effects on children or do violent video games cause minors to act
aggressively?
 Are violent video games distinguishable from other forms of violent media
such as television, motion pictures, and music? They are interactive and
repetitive. First person interaction. Handling killer tools. Making the most violent
decisions will get them the most reward. Set goals. Communicate with players.
 Does violent video games' repetitive and interactive nature makes
children particularly effective in programming children to feel, think, and
behave aggressively?
 If numerous and serious risks to mental health can result from exposure
to violent video games due to their cognitive programming potential, and
 children and adolescents are acutely vulnerable to these risks because
their brains are still developing, is that enough reason to impose a liability
on such games?
 Is it true that violent media producer will disregard the external social harms
caused by their media if they are immunized from liability for those
harms? [Boyd v Racine]
 Won’t a tort liability conflict with the First Amendment policies that speech does
not lose protection due to its profitability and that free speech must be broadly
protected?
 Are there identified categories of speech that are unprotected by the First
Amendment and therefore subject to criminal punishment, in matters of
violent video games? LOOK FOR TESTS.
 To what extent does the video game industry employ a duty of care, and does
this duty interfere with their (a) profits (b) potential in future markets (c) free
speech protections?
Next class:
 Read NY times v Sullivan
 Courts' speech-tort jurisprudence on violent media (video games, movies, images
etc)
 Research for cases that will/will not apply to this fact pattern