First Treatise on Zombies

Sometimes its hard to pay attention in the last class of the week. However, not paying full attention in class can leave room for important intellectual pursuits. In this case, Mike asked a question about whether we could harvest organs from zombies. Thirty minutes later, we had a short treatise on the subject, which I have the honor of posting here:

First Treatise on Zombies
by Brad Sarnell and Mike Vomacka, Future Esq.'s

Question 1:
To whom does the body of the reanimated zombie belong?

*The necromancer- This appears to work under a Lockean theory of law. Without his labor, the body would still be dead. The necromancer could also be appropriating abandoned property if the estate is far enough removed from their kin. This is supported by use of cadavers, property of owned by hospitals or states- this suggests that dead bodies can owned by third parties.

*The dead person- You have property in your body when you’re alive, and your parents (despite having to perform labor to bring you into being) never actually own your body. If the property is never relinquished, the zombie would maintain his ownership. Alternatively, the zombie could be reclaiming ownership of its body through conquest. However, this has one fatal flaw: the zombie would a have will other than that of the necromancer.

*The estate- Let’s face it, higher brain function appears to be lacking in most zombies. They can move, they can groan, and they can eat brains. This is pretty much it. That probably qualifies them as an incompetent, and therefore control of them would go to the executor, who has power of attorney.

Now this is important not only to the question of organ harvesting, but also to the question of who is liable for the zombie’s torts. If control of the body belongs to the estate or the necromancer, they both have control and the knowledge that they can exert that control in the extremely likely event that the zombie escapes and starts eating people’s brains. A zombie could also be compared to an employee of the necromancer, suggesting liability under respondiat superior.

Question 2:
Can the zombie or his estate sue the necromancer for wrongful undeath?

*The issue is what you are compare the undeath to. There is no recovery for wrongful life, because courts say you can’t compare not being born to being born with a defect. (For the sake of argument here, I’m gonna count undeath as a defect.) However, in this case, the zombie was once alive. So are you comparing undeath to life, or undeath to death in order to decide how much compensation is due the zombie.

Prior case law suggests it is likely the zombie/estate can recover for diabilities caused by negligent reincarnation (lack or hindered bodily functionality). However, it is unclear whether the restoration of life alone is an injury courts will be willing to grant recovery for.

Proponents of judicial restraint may argue for the consideration of living (deceased?) wills – people could manifest their intent to be reincarnated. However, a practical approach suggests many people will be unprepared for their undeath. Do religious beliefs accentuating a future reincarnation manifest a latent desire to be zombified?

Further considerations:
> Does the discussion change when we consider the reincarnation of chattel (dogs, horses, sharks)? Chattel is incapable of self ownership, and the disposal of many animals is regulated by government agencies.
> If the chanting of two necromancers contributes to a reincarnation, would the body shared among parties?

Hopefully, this is only the first incarnation of this treatise, or at least the first of many intellectual discussions that will end up gracing the pages of this blog.

May all your hits be crits,
B