Exploitation of enslaved ancestors forges a legal duty of care.

Evidence

I agree with the court’s holding that Harvard’s exploitation of the enslavement of Lanier’s ancestors forges a special relationship between Harvard and Lanier that obligates Harvard to exercise reasonable care in responding to Lanier’s claim that the daguerreotypes in its possession depict her ancestors. As the court explains, because Lanier plausibly alleges facts that would support a finding that Harvard woefully failed to satisfy this duty of care, thereby causing Lanier emotional distress—an undoubtedly reasonable reaction in these circumstances, with physical manifestations—Lanier has stated a claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress against Harvard…. — Tamara Lanier, From These Roots, 1311

Categorization

Category: Contrarian or Surprising Claims

• DEFINE: Core doctrinal finding: enslavement’s exploitation creates a ‘special relationship’ imposing reasonable-care duties on a present-day institution.

Related

• A court held enslavement exploitation creates a duty of care triggering NIED claims (similarity 0.92)
• The court allowed the emotional distress claim but kept ownership with Harvard (similarity 0.80)
• Harvard’s slavery committee report logic extends to Agassiz’s photographed subjects. (similarity 0.79)
• Harvard’s historical complicity now imposes present duties toward descendants. (similarity 0.79)
• Harvard treated Lanier as lacking standing over her own ancestor’s image. (similarity 0.79)
• Harvard’s own slavery-commitment report endorses descendant remedies beyond legal obligation. (similarity 0.79)
• Harvard’s own conduct plausibly qualified as extreme and outrageous (similarity 0.78)
• Lanier sued Harvard for wrongful seizure and expropriation of her enslaved ancestors’ cultural property (similarity 0.78)