Suing the superheroes: can we hold them liable for destruction

The law requires an act, which can be a physical action or an omission (failure to act), to have occurred. The act must be voluntary and caused by a human being. Iron Man (Tony Stark) checks both these boxes. He is human, and he willingly engaged in combat, making his actions voluntary. Hulk (Bruce Banner), on the other hand, presents a legal dilemma. At the time of the battle, he was under the influence of the Scarlet Witch’s mind control. This means he was not in control of his actions—a key requirement for liability.

Hulk could use the defence of automatism, which applies when a person acts involuntarily due to circumstances beyond their control (such as sleepwalking, seizures, or blackouts).

Since he was manipulated by an external force (Scarlet Witch’s powers), he could argue that he lacked the ability to control his muscular movements and therefore cannot be held legally responsible. Iron Man, however, had full control of his actions and would have a much harder time escaping liability.

Not all harmful acts are legally wrongful. For liability to arise, an act must infringe a legally protected interest—such as property, safety, or physical well-being, in a legally reprehensible way.

Within the fight scene we saw destruction of buildings, cars, and infrastructure. This is clearly wrongful. South African residents and business owners have a legally protected interest in their property. Furthermore, there were many public safety concerns: if a superhero’s actions put innocent bystanders at risk, the South African Courts would consider it wrongful.

The only possible defence here isnecessity. If Iron Man argued that the destruction was unavoidable in his attempt to neutralise a greater threat (Hulk), he might have a case.

However, this defence is weak when the damage is as extensive as what we saw in the Johannesburg fight scene. The line further becomes blurred when we learn that the superheroes were fighting one another. Iron Man’s actions could be considered wrongful underSouth African law.

To be held liable, a person must have acted either intentionally (dolus) or negligently (culpa). In terms of intentional wrongdoing, if Iron Man deliberately caused damage, liability would be clear. However, he wasn’t out to destroy Johannesburg, he was trying to stop the Hulk. However, with the element of negligence, things get interesting. Negligence occurs when a reasonable person in Iron Man’s position would have foreseen the damage and taken steps to prevent it.

The city of Johannesburg might argue that a reasonable person (or hero) would have found a safer way to stop Hulk. Iron Man’s failure to contain the battle in a less populated area was reckless.

Hulk, however, lacked intent (since he was under mind control), and negligence does not apply to someone who isn’t in control of their actions. Iron Man was negligent and therefore at fault: although he found an abandoned building to level, the conflict caused damage to multiple other areas of our CBD. Hulk gets a pass.

Causation has two components:

If Iron Man had alternative options (such as leading Hulk out of the city), he could be held legally responsible. However, if Scarlet Witch’s interference is seen as an intervening cause (novus actus interveniens), it could break the chain of liability. Both superheroes factually caused the destruction, but legally, Hulk’s liability is questionable due to mind control.

The final element is proof of damages, which in this case would be staggering. Possible claims include property damage, medical expenses and economic loss. This includes skyscrapers, roads, vehicles, and storefronts totalled, injuries (or worse) suffered by bystanders and businesses forced to shut down.

The estimated cost could rack up to R30–R50 billion in real-world terms. Since damage is clear and quantifiable, this element is met without issue. To conclude, would Johannesburg be able to hold these superheroes liable?

Based on the elements of delict, Iron Man would be the primary defendant in our case. Hulk, due to automatism, might escape liability—but a creative lawyer could still argue for vicarious liability (holding the Avengers responsible).

The City of Johannesburg would likely succeed in their claim but collecting damages from a “billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”1 in a flying suit might be another battle altogether!