By Alberto Bernabe

The general common law does not recognize a duty to help or to control the conduct of others. However, over time, courts and the Restatement of Torts have recognized limited duties in certain circumstances. Some of the most commonly accepted exceptions to the general rule are based on the existence of a special relationship between the person alleged to have a duty to help and the person in need of help. Traditionally, a special relationship exists when one party depends on the other for protection and the other party has the ability to provide the needed protection. For this reason, whether a relationship constitutes a special relationship which creates a duty to help or protect has usually been interpreted narrowly. Originally, the concept was limited to the relationship between common carriers and their passengers, and between innkeepers and their guests. Yet, for a variety of reasons, the notion of special relationships has been extended to include other types of relationships such as those between landlords and tenants, and commercial establishments and their customers.

Likewise, jurisdictions have shifted their approach on whether colleges and universities have a special relationship with their students. Before the 1960s, higher education institutions were considered to stand in loco parentis to students, and thus, as exercising control over the students who were, in turn, thought to be in the schools’ care. . .

By Devan Braun

In the wake of the federal government’s failure to implement policies designed to adequately mitigate climate change in the United States, action taken by individual states is now at the forefront of reducing emissions and incentivizing renewable energy.  This has drawn strong opposition to both new and existing programs such as renewable portfolio standards and renewable energy mandates, which have helped for some time now to decarbonize and diversify the electric grid from which we, as consumers, receive our power.  We now find ourselves in a position in which cost-effective renewable generation exists and can provide a realistic alternative to the use of traditional fossil fuels,  but legal uncertainty as to the viability of state renewable energy programs is a potential barrier slowing down our ability to decarbonize the electric grid and reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. . . .

By Andrew Kinde

In 2016, almost every country in the world signed and ratified the Paris Agreement, the most significant concerted action toward mitigating climate change to date. While noteworthy and ambitious, the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping global warming below the scientific consensus threshold of two degrees Celsius continues to become less realistic absent more substantial actions to achieve a low-carbon energy infrastructure. One strategy debated in recent years involves using natural gas as a “bridge fuel” to a low-carbon energy economy. The main argument in its favor is that it is a cleaner, conventional, and cost-effective substitute to coal. However, recent studies have concluded that this strategy might actually “exacerbate the climate change problem” because of methane leakage associated with natural gas and by “delaying deployment of renewable energy technologies.” Still, proponents of the “bridge fuel” strategy argue that natural gas is needed until we solve the two major problems of renewables: intermittency and cost. These “bridge fuel” proponents claim that dispatchable sources like natural gas, coal, nuclear, and hydro are necessary to ensure grid reliability because they can be stored and switched on at a moment’s notice whenever required. The inherent intermittent quality of renewables arguably makes those sources less reliable and not as dispatchable compared to supposed “baseload” sources. The traditional concept of baseload sources is that they “operate continuously to meet the minimum level of power demand 24/7,” with nuclear and coal power used as prime examples. . . .

By Patricia Pérez Elías

This article explores whether an equal protection claim under the Massachusetts Constitution could be brought to successfully challenge the local control provision currently included in Chapter 55, Section 23 of the Massachusetts Acts of 2017 (“marijuana law”) regarding adult use marijuana. The local control provision (“Section 23”) of the marijuana law differentiates between Massachusetts municipalities based on how they voted on Question 4 of the 2016 election ballot, which was titled “Legalization, Regulation, and Taxation of Marijuana.” Specifically, Section 23 allows local elected officials in municipalities that voted against the legalization of marijuana to adopt ordinances that limit the number of marijuana establishments within their borders without first submitting the ordinances for approval by the voters. On the other hand, Section 23 requires officials in municipalities that voted in the affirmative on ballot Question 4 to first submit such ordinances to voters for approval. A claimant seeking to challenge Section 23 on state equal protection grounds would argue that the local control provision burdens the fundamental right to vote . . . 

By Maya Fe Holzhauer

Internet memes, pictures with juxtaposed text which evolve through imitation, reproduction, and mutation, have become a widespread phenomenon with millions of memes being created and shared daily. Memes influence modern communication and culture, and are used as a form of entertainment, as business and marketing tools, and as a method for making social commentary. The ease with which memes can be created and shared has led to a vibrant social internet culture. Meme creators are usually not the copyright owners in the underlying work: surprisingly, however, there has been little litigation on this issue. This article examines why legal claims based on copyright infringement are unlikely to succeed in the meme context….

By Jennifer Cullinane

On July 17, 2017, the Chakalos sisters petitioned a New Hampshire probate court to declare their nephew, Nathan Carman, their father’s murderer. Just days before Christmas in the winter of 2013, 87 year-old John Chakalos was found dead from multiple gunshot wounds in his Connecticut home. His grandson, Carman, was the last person to see him alive. Contending their father’s sudden death “froze his estate plan at a time when it was structured to provide millions of dollars for [Carman’s] benefit,” the Chakalos sisters claim that Carman murdered his grandfather to prevent changes to the estate plan and to accelerate his inheritance. Pursuing a “slayer” action against the person they believe killed their father, the sisters requested that the court declare Carman “committed this heinous act out of malice and greed” and impose a constructive trust over the portion of the estate that would otherwise flow to his benefit. Rarely seen in New Hampshire probate courts, such a claim stands not only to captivate an audience hungry for scandal but also to shape New Hampshire jurisprudence. The law underlying their action is simple. A “slayer rule” requires “[a]n individual who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent” to “forfeit[] all benefits . . . with respect to the decedent’s estate[.]” A reflection of the common law maxim that a wrongdoer should not profit from his wrongful act, the American slayer rule aims to preserve the testator’s unspoken intent – that no victim would want their killer to benefit by virtue of their death....