Making The Injured Party Whole Again: Punitive Damages in John Wick 2

[Warning: Major spoilers for John Wick: Chapter 2 ahead. Don’t read unless you’ve seen the movie or don’t care about being spoiled.]

At the end of John Wick: Chapter 2, the eponymous hero (Keanu Reeves) strolls into The Continental, the posh assassins-only hotel in downtown Manhattan, points a gun at bad guy Santino D’Antonio (Riccardo Scamarcio) and blows his head off despite the protestations of Winston (Ian McShane), the hotel’s proprietor. This is a violation of the most sacred rule in the underworld: The Continental is safe ground. No assassin may kill another on the premises without paying the ultimate price, a penalty we saw play out at the end of the first film. A severe punishment for the breach of a severe covenant. 

Soon after, Winston summons John to Central Park to mete out the same sentence. John is informed that he is "excommunicado," that he can no longer seek refuge at any Continental hotel, and a $14 million contract has been put on his life. Every professional killer in the world will now be looking for him. Out of respect, John is granted a one hour head start to run. But before leaving, John issues this chilling ultimatum:

"You tell them, whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all."

Oh man, it’s so good I just got goosebumps typing that. If this film is any indication, John Wick: Chapter 3 promises to be a highly entertaining bloodbath.

Anyway, while the whole mishegas was playing, I was thinking about contract damages and whether John’s actions, bad as they were, deserved such serious punishment. I know it’s silly to presume traditional contract principles apply in an underworld populated by killers and other bad men, but the Wickverse is steeped in rules and formality and the films go to great lengths to showcase that. Everything is intricately choreographed. The system is built on profound order and relies on respect for that order. It doesn’t matter if you’re a lowly factotum or the famed Baba Yaga, the system comes before the man and everyone must pay what they owe. The contracts may not be written on paper, but they exist, and participation in this world requires that everyone meet their contractual obligation - we can call this one the Implied Covenant of Assassination Forbearance.

So humor me for a bit. John agreed to the rules of The Continental, then blatantly flouted them to exact his revenge on Santino. A kill order is placed on his life in order to appease the system. Is that bounty fair? It’s an important question to ask because fairness is at the heart of calculating damages in contract or tort law. How do we make the injured party whole again? How do we make it so that the injuries they sustain are offset as much as possible?

It can be done monetarily, of course. That’s the way we usually resolve contract disputes in the U.S. Compensatory Damages are financial in nature, the most common of which is what lawyers call Expectation Damages: the damages that are intended to cover what the injured party expected to receive from the contract. 

There are other types of monetary damages too. Consequential Damages, which are paid to the injured party for indirect damages other than contractual loss; Liquidation Damages, which is when the contract states that the breaching party will be liable for a specific amount of money; Nominal Damages, which are awarded when the injured plaintiff doesn't incur a monetary loss but the judge wants to show the winning party was in the right; and Restitution, which is an equitable remedy designed to prevent the breaching party from being unjustly enriched.

In this movie though, the damages aren’t monetary. While money - paid in the form of gold coins - is important to many operators in the Wickverse, to those in power, it's less important than honoring the system (the entire plot hinges on the importance of a blood oath John made). Instead, the damages to be paid = John’s death. But John’s death isn’t just about making The Continental whole again. It’s to send a message. John didn’t just kill some random person, after all; Santino was a member of the shadowy High Table, a cabal of crime lords alluded to throughout the film, but never seen. The High Table presides over the entire Wickverse, and everyone works for or with them to some degree. So the price on John’s head is also about removing a level of chaos that John has introduced into the system. To the powers that be, he must be punished severely enough that it deters future assassins from making the same choices. $14 million and every killer in the world gunning for you sounds like a pretty major deterrent. And to me that sounds an awful lot like Punitive Damages.

According to the New York State Court of Appeals, Punitive Damages are:

“available only in those limited circumstances where it is necessary to deter defendant and others like it from engaging in conduct that may be characterized as ‘gross’ and ‘morally reprehensible,’ and of ‘such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations.’”

Punitive Damages come into play when Compensatory Damages aren't enough to make the injured party whole. They're also generally unavailable for contract disputes, but can be applied in contract situations where there’s an overlapping tort claim. So are there any tort claims that can piggyback onto the breach of contract claims The Continental and The High Table might have against John that could result in Punitive Damages? It’s a stretch, but I think there might be.

For The Continental, I would say their best tort claim against John would be Intentional Interference with a Prospective Economic Advantage. And while the elements of that claim differ by state, they generally are:

1. An economic relationship existing between the plaintiff and a third party containing the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff,

2. Knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship, 

3. An intentional act on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship,

4. Actual disruption of the relationship, and

5. Damages to the plaintiff caused by the acts of the defendant.

While proving all these elements isn’t a slam-dunk, I think a good lawyer could make them work. John knew that The Continental was a safe haven for professional killers, traveling there throughout both films to derive its benefits and utilize its unique services (the Sommelier and Tailor sequences in the second film are incredible). John also demonstrates previously existing relationships with various hotel staffers, including friendly bonds with the managers of both the New York and Rome branches. John is also plainly aware that many other assassins use the hotel for the same reason he does: for peace of mind that they won’t get whacked while on the job, as he makes several allusions to this throughout the two films. In fact, in the first film, after he’s attacked in his room by Ms. Perkins, John is able to subdue her and instead of killing her, he asks a fellow assassin named Harry to watch her, then report her to the manager. This is all to say that John clearly knows the hotel derives an economic benefit between itself and its specific customer base. This takes care of the first two elements. 

The third element is John’s execution of Santino on Continental grounds, even as Winston tells him in the moment not to do it and what the repercussions would be if he did. The fourth and fifth elements are a bit harder to prove within the text of the film, since we don’t know if The Continental’s business suffers as a result of John’s actions. However, I think a reasonable argument can be made that business may be jeopardized. The whole benefit to staying at The Continental is that you can’t be killed there. It’s a safe place for everyone regardless of your criminal affiliation. If customers don’t feel safe there, they won’t use the hotel. If they don’t use the hotel, the hotel will lose money and cease to operate. You’d need some documentation to prove that assassins are now staying away from the hotel, but I think you could get there.

Because we've never seen The High Table and don't know the extent or type of its business, it's harder to say what economic harms they can pin on John Wick. I do think they could also benefit from an intentional interference claim though. What little we know of the group indicates that membership is incredibly coveted, and that each member controls certain geographic areas. The unexpected death of a member could result in lost profits from the various rackets they operate. 

Look, obviously no one is taking John to court (though it wouldn't surprise me if an underworld judicial system pops up in the sequel), so I appreciate you humoring me on this little journey. I'm always looking for the legal footholds to latch onto, even if it's not really applicable. That said, everyone in the Wickverse operates out of a certain sense of justice that isn’t wholly divorced from our own. The High Table and The Continental owners certainly feel that having John Wick killed for his transgression is the right thing to do. A fair thing to do. That's what will make them whole again. And if the punishment is harsh, well it's deservingly so. John, on the other hand, has very different ideas about what's fair. And when those two concepts of fairness go head to head in the sequel, I imagine it'll be a bloody good time.

Ellen Page And The Strange Case Of The Misappropriated Likeness

It’s been a weird couple of months for Ellen Page, the elfin actress behind Juno. A few months ago, her likeness was stolen for the hit video game The Last of Us. Now, a video game that she actually participated in and lent her likeness to, Beyond: Two Souls, has featured her in a digital nude shower scene, pictures of which leaked without her consent, and which show the whole shebang.

Let's talk about The Last of Us first. Back in June, the video game made a splash, and not just because it was a critical hit. One of the game's main characters, Ellie, looked suspiciously like Page, so much so that people were asking Page if she acted in the game (she didn't). In fact, early concept art of Ellie art didn't just resemble Page, it was clearly her face.  Behold!

The one on the left is the concept art of Ellie and the middle is the version of Ellie that appears in the game, altered to look less like Page. If you're not convinced by these side-by-sides, just google "last of us ellen page" and you'll see comparison after comparison. What's striking is how even after the developer, Naughty Dog, changed Ellie's appearance, she pretty much still looks just like Page.

Anyway, Page caught wind of this and instead of suing the pants off Naughty Dog, she said this:

I guess I should be flattered that they ripped off my likeness, but I am actually acting in a video game called Beyond: Two Souls, so it was not appreciated.

Naughty Dog is pretty lucky Page isn't lawsuit-happy because she has a solid case for Appropriation of Likeness, a tort that prohibits the use of someone's name or likeness for commercial purposes without their consent (in California, name and likeness are actually protected by statute - California Civil Code Section 3344(a)). If she decided to sue, she could put Naughty Dog out of business.

So now we arrive at Beyond: Two Souls, the game that Page actually participated in by doing the voice and motion capture (see pic above) for her character. At one point, the game features a scene with digital version of Page's character taking a shower, all of her lady parts tastefully obscured. Unfortunately,  pictures from a developers-only version of the game leaked out, showing those lady parts in their entirety (Page, of course, did not pose nude for this scene. She filmed her role wearing a mo-cap suit - a leotard fitted with digital nodes that capture her movement).

Who's to blame? The game's developer, Quantic Dream, seems like the obvious target since it made the nude model to begin with; without the model, this controversy would never have arisen (in the law, we call this "direct causation"). But Quantic Dream claims that it made it impossible to view the model's lady parts within the course of normal gameplay. Their story is that an unauthorized developer took the model and filled in the blanks, as it were. So is Quantic Dream off the hook because someone found a way to view that model in an unintended way? And even if Quantic Dream was the right party, could Page sue the company for Appropriation of Likeness? She did permit the use of her face, after all, but does her "likeness" extend to her other features? Consider also that since Page didn't actually pose nude, all the "blanks" that were filled in by the unauthorized developer were done from imagination - does that alter the analysis? At this stage, it's unknown whether Page had an anti-nudity clause in her contract, and whether a 3D rendering of her body would qualify for the purposes of an Appropriation claim (there's some case law indicating that it might qualify). Basically, there are a lot of unknowns.

Here's what makes the whole thing even more fascinating: Sony, Beyond's distributor, is also the distributor for The Last of Us. This puts them in an awkward situation vis-a-vis their relationship with Page. Twice in one year she's become a victim of a high-profile game they released.  And once the pictures are out in the world, they're out there; there's no getting them back.

It'll be interesting to see if Page decides to pursue the matter legally. In the meantime, I'm sure she's learned her lesson: no more video games with Sony.

Tortious Interference on Parks and Recreation: How Rent A Swag Can Fight Back Against Tommy's Closet

[Parks & Recreation is the best comedy on TV these days, so in honor of its new season, I've taken a look at one story issue that's been bugging me since last season's finale.  Enjoy!]

Tortious interference occurs when a person intentionally damages the  business relationships of another.  Parks & Recreation occurs at 8:00pm, Thursday nights on NBC.  The former is a type of civil liability imposed on one party who financially harms another party.  The latter is an exceptionally sweet and intelligent sitcom that none of you are watching.  What do the two have in common?  A lot, surprisingly.

Last season, Tom Haverford - played by Aziz Ansari as a pop-culture obsessed, clothes horse, mogul wannabe - started a business called Rent-a-Swag, a store where the "teens, tweens, and in-betweens" of Pawnee, Indiana could rent "the dopest shirts, the swankiest jackets, the slickest cardigans, the flashiest fedoras, the hottest ties, the snazziest canes and more!"  Per the store's fake website, "before you waste your money on something that won't fit in a month, or fight with your parents over that sick velvet blazer they won't buy for you - step into Rent-A-Swag."  It's a good idea, right?

Anyway, the business took off and Tom was thisclose to leaving his job at the Parks and Recreation Department.  Unfortunately, Tom discovered that a competitor opened a rival store directly across the street called Tommy's Closet.  The competitor (whose identity I won't reveal here) informed Tom that Tommy's Closet was designed specifically to drive Rent-a-Swag out of business.

I don't know how the Parks & Recreation writers intend to resolve the situation (it will likely be sweet and goofy), but if I was Tom's attorney, I would advise him to sue the pants off (hehe) the owner of Tommy's Closet.  In tort law, there's something called tortious interference with an expected economic advantage and it gives business owners a way to stop those who maliciously attempt to drive expected consumers away from their business.  To win, Tom would have to prove that:

1. Tom had a reasonable expectation of economic benefit from the operation of Rent-a-Swag,
2. The competitor had knowledge of that expectation,
3. The competitor intentional interfered with Tom's expected economic benefit, and
4. Tom suffered economic damage as a result of the interference.

It wouldn't be very entertaining to watch, but Tom would most assuredly win a lawsuit against his competitor.  First, Tom had a good reason to expect an economic benefit; he was already receiving it!  His business was booming during the tail end of Season 5.  Tom was even able to hire employees and pay dividends to his stockholders.  Second, the competitor told Tom (in front of other people, I might add... witnesses!) that he was aware of Rent-a-Swag's financial success.  In fact, during the Season 5 finale, he tried to buy Rent-a-Swag from Tom because it had become a known moneymaker.  Third, the competitor admitted his desire to drive Tom out of business out of a misplaced sense of revenge and was actively luring customers away with free pizza and prizes.  Finally, we see in the Season 6 opener that Tommy's Closet had succeeded in drawing customers away from Rent-a-Swag; the episode shows Tom alone in his store, all the customers having fled across the street.  Tom has clearly suffered an economic damage.

While these kinds of malicious actions are rare, they do happen.  Therefore it's important for all artists and small business owners to be aware that there are options available to them should they become victims of tortious interference.  As a rule, the law doesn't look kindly upon those who open a business solely to spite another business.  In the real world, Tom has options - and so do you.  Of course, this is TV and I'm sure that whatever the Parks & Recreation writers come up with, it will be a hell of a lot funnier than watching this play out in a courtroom.

[You can also make a credible argument that Tom has a trade dress claim - a form of trademark infringement that protects a store's interior design - against the competitor since we learn that the interior of Tommy's Closet looks exactly like the interior of Rent-a-Swag.]

Topless Celebrity Photos! Or How To Get Sued Like A Paparazzo

A few weeks ago, I wrote this piece about how artists own the copyright to their work even after they've sold the physical manifestation of that work (i.e. retaining the copyright over a painting even after selling the physical painting to a buyer).  The post generated a lot of interest and in the ensuing discussion, I got several variants of this question:

"If I take a topless photo of [Hot Celebrity Female] at a secluded beach, can she interfere with my ownership over that photo and prevent me from mass producing it and make a mint?"

As with everything in the law, the answer is a resounding "kind of!" Hot Celebrity Female can indeed interfere with your ability to profit from selling topless photos of her to a tabloid... but not through manipulation of copyright ownership (which, I presume, is what the question was really asking). When the subject of your art is another person, they cannot interfere with your ownership of the copyright, nor can they claim ownership rights over that photo simply because they are the subject.  The copyright is vested only in the artist except in these three scenarios:

1. Sale of the copyright to another (i.e. selling the photo and copyright to TMZ)
2. Conveyance of the copyright through a bequest or gift (i.e. giving the photo and copyright to a family member or friend)
3. Certain work for hire situations (usually on projects that require collaboration, like films)

"But," you might ask, "don't celebrities have ownership rights over their personal appearances?"  Nope.  Neither copyright nor trademark law offer protection over your personal appearance.  Trademark law DOES allow you to register many other visual elements such as logos, symbols, patterns, designs - but your personal appearance is not granted any protection under the intellectual property laws of this country.  This means that, unless you sell or gift the copyright, or the copyright isn't yours to begin with, there's really nothing that Hot Celebrity Female can do to interfere with your ownership.  If you are inclined to do so, you are free to take a highly compromising picture of her and sell or license that copyright to TMZ, The Daily Mail, The New York Post, and any other publication that profits from the exploitation of celebrity culture.  You'll probably make a small bounty doing that and in fact, there's an entire group of professional photographers who make their living precisely this way: the paparazzi.

But that's not the end of the story.  Owning the copyright to topless photos of Hot Celebrity Female does not give you an unassailable right to do whatever you please with those photographs.  Even though she has no ownership rights over the photos, she can still take you to court in a big way.  Everyone - from the lowliest plebe to the most glorious celebrity - has a right to a certain degree of privacy, and tort law provides several tools that allow people to fight an invasion of that privacy.

One of the more potent tools that celebs like to use is something called "appropriation of name or likeness."  An appropriation of name or likeness is considered an invasion of privacy when a person uses your name or likeness  for commercial purposes without your permission.  So when you take a compromising photograph of a celebrity, especially in locations where they have a certain expectation of privacy, you open yourself to liability.  That's why paparazzi and the magazines they sell to get sued ALL THE TIME.  Usually, if the celebrity is in a public place, like at a restaurant or on a red carpet, there's little they can do to fight publication of that image, so an appropriation of likeness claim won't go very far.  But when the photo is snapped in a private location (like in their backyards or on a balcony at a remote resort in the rain forest), you could end up losing all the money you made from selling that picture.  Remember last fall when some paparazzo snapped photos of a topless Kate Middleton on a secluded balcony using a telephoto lens? Do you remember the Royal family suing the french magazine that published them?  The magazine lost that battle because Princess Kate wasn't photographed topless at a public beach... she was on a private balcony that was obscured by tree cover.  The only way the photographer was able to get those photos was by using the kind of lens usually reserved for NSA spy satellites.

So the moral of the story... Hot Female Celebrity can't take away your ownership over that photo you took of her.  But she can, in some situations, prevent you from making money off of it.  You, as the photographer, have to decide whether all that trouble is worth it just to catch a glimpse of Kate Middleton's boobs.

Filmmaker-2-Filmmaker: Tip 4 - You Need To Insure Your Gear

A few weeks ago, I was on the phone with my cousin, a freelance photographer living in Los Angeles.  He had been shooting some fashion shots at a client's warehouse and paused to look over some of the slides with the client.  He set his camera on the ground and one of the client's employees accidentally kicked it while walking by.  Luckily, the camera body (worth about $5K retail) remained intact, but the lens was shot to hell. It would cost him $600 to replace and he wasn't sure if he should ask the client to cover that cost.  On the one hand, the client was responsible and my cousin didn't have 600 spare dollars lying around.  On the other hand, my cousin is a freelancer and didn't want to risk losing the client by asking him to pay for the lens.  To add another wrinkle, he needed to get the lens replaced ASAP because he only had the one camera and couldn't book more jobs without it.

We discussed the pros and cons of approaching the client, but in my mind, time and ability to book more jobs was more important, so I told my cuz "file a claim with your insurance company right away."  His response: "I don't have insurance."  D'oh!

With the exception of acting or interpretive dance, every artist needs some form of equipment to do the job.   All art is reliant on it, especially film and photography.  Which is why you absolutely, positively, unequivocally without hesitation need to insure your gear.

Because here's the thing: your gear is the single biggest investment you will ever make in your work.  And if it gets damaged, your ability to do your job decreases exponentially.  You do have some legal options, but the law is not particularly user friendly, what with all the time and money involved in suing someone... money that you probably don't have lying around waiting to be burned.  And anyway, why sue when insurance is so much cheaper and easier?   Besides, it's not like you have an unassailable right to have the client pay for your damaged gear (unless the client agrees to it in writing which I've never seen in my seven years of producing television). In my experience, insuring your gear is the best way to cover your ass... especially in those early lean years when you really can't afford to piss off a client by demanding he pay for gear he broke.

Truth: early in my freelance career, I had upwards of $15K worth of camera and editing gear insured through a "personal articles policy" with State Farm.  Do you know how much I paid on a monthly basis to have that peace of mind? $10 a month.  And the policy covered theft, loss, and damage (even if I was the responsible party).  Having that coverage was a no-brainer.  And because of it, I never had to jeopardize a relationship with a client over equipment that was damaged, and I never had to cancel a gig because I couldn't afford to replace broken gear.

But let's say you have no insurance and your client smashes your camera to bits.  Let's also assume that your relationship with the client is beyond saving and you're willing to litigate.  From my seat, there are two legal options.  If you can't prove that your client maliciously destroyed your property but he/she is clearly to blame for its demise, you could sue for damages under a simple run-of-the-mill negligence claim.  Even if the damage was done by the client's employee as opposed to the client him/herself, the client will still be liable for it (in tort law, respondeat superior makes the actions of an employee attributable to the employer).

On the other hand, if you have some proof that the client (or the client's employee) willfully and maliciously destroyed your equipment?  You could sue under the intentional tort of trespass to chattels, otherwise known as vandalism.

The problem with litigation, of course, is the cost.  Not just in litigation fees, but in time.  An average lawsuit can take years to litigate and cost tens of thousands of dollars.  It's a serious investment that can get even more serious if you lose.  That's not even mentioning the emotional and creative suckage it causes.  And if you're a small-business owner or struggling artist, do you really want a lawsuit taking up space in your brain when it could be filled with creative stuff instead?  I spoke before about sweating the business stuff, and I think insurance is no.1 or no.2 on the list of smart, cheap things that will help your business in the short and long run.

Quincy Jones: Steve Wynn Did Not Threaten to Kill Joe Francis and Bury Him in the Desert

Here's something fun for a Friday!  This is the opening paragraph of Yahoo's report on the on-going legal feud between Las Vegas casino magnate Steve Wynn and Girls Gone Wild auteur Joe Francis:

"Music mogul Quincy Jones testified Thursday that he never told "Girls Gone Wild" creator Joe Francis that casino mogul Steve Wynn had threatened to kill the soft-porn producer and have him buried in the desert."

I think that may be the greatest sentence ever written... Kudos to Yahoo's Anthony McCartney!  For the record, I have no desire to become gossip blogger, but sometimes the goings-on in the entertainment industry are so ludicrous that I can't help but report on them.   According to this LA Times piece, Francis made the death threat accusation while fighting with Wynn over an alleged $2 million gambling debt owed to Wynn's casino.  Francis further accused Wynn of plying him with prostitutes to keep him gambling in the hopes of luring high rollers to the casino. A Nevada judge awarded Wynn $7.5 million in a defamation lawsuit over that claim.

Anyone who has paid attention to Hollywood over the past decade knows that the entertainment industry is on the precipice.  Movie ticket sales are down, the networks are hemorrhaging money because of technological advances in time and space shifting (i.e. DVRs, iTunes, iPad, etc.), and there are overreaching attempts by the major media companies to kill websites that display their copyrighted works.  But I guess sometimes we all need a distraction from the bad news facing the industry.  And who knows, maybe there's a killer movie in here somewhere.  I say Zach Braff could play Francis and Laurence Fishburne could play Quincy Jones!

Who would you cast?

Suing The Avengers

(Author's note: I don't want to be a one-trick pony, so this'll be the last of my legal movie analyses for a little while - unless there's a demand... or unless I change my mind).

Warning: Spoilers! If you haven’t seen The Avengers and don’t want to know what happens, read no further.

This past May, as I sat in the theater thoroughly enjoying Joss Whedon’s “The Avengers,” I began to wonder: what if I had been injured by falling debris during the final battle between the Avengers and the invading Chitauri army?  Anyone who has seen a comic book movie knows that superheroes cause a lot of collateral damage.  The Avengers is a unique example because destruction isn’t solely the result of the alien horde descending on New York with their massive floating bio-mechanical weapons.  The good guys who are charged with protecting the city cause their fair share of damage as well.  Unlike previous superhero entries, The Avengers have not one, but three super-powered being (Hulk, Thor, Iron Man), each with significant anger issues.

In fact, it has been estimated that approximately $160 billion in property damage was caused during the battle of New York.  That figure is staggering, not least of which because, thanks to the unsurpassed leadership of Captain America, the Avengers were able to keep the battle confined to a 4-6 block radius.  We also know that the Chitauri invaded New York without warning and the sudden nature of the attack meant that the Avengers did not have enough time to clear the battle zone of bystanders.  The film goes out of its way to show us innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.  It stands to reason that with so much damage, a storm of laser fire, and so little opportunity to get innocents out of harms way, someone is going to get badly hurt.  So when the battle is done and the superheroes have long since departed, who can you sue to recover your medical costs?

The obvious answer is to sue S.H.I.E.L.D.  After all, S.H.I.E.L.D. assembled the Avengers, and in legal parlance, is both the “actual” and “proximate” cause of the injuries.  But S.H.I.E.L.D. is a government agency and is protected by Sovereign Immunity, a legal doctrine that prevents government entities from being sued for monetary damages.  In certain situations, however, the government can waive its immunity by way of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which allows federal agencies to be sued for damages as if they were private entities.  Under the FTCA, if you can prove that the Avengers acted without due care in their rescue of the city, you can sue S.H.I.E.L.D. for the negligent acts of its employees (in tort law, we call this Respondeat Superior).

Thus, in order to sue S.H.I.E.L.D. under the FTCA, we must determine if Iron Man, Hulk and Thor are employees of S.H.I.E.L.D.  The FTCA defines employee as, “officers or employees of any federal agency, members of the military or naval forces of the United States, members of the National Guard while engaged in training or duty… and persons acting on behalf of a federal agency in an official capacity, temporarily or permanently in the service of the United States, whether with or without compensation….”  So, were Iron Man, Hulk, and Thor acting on behalf of S.H.I.E.L.D. in an official capacity?

It’s best to stop right here because this will lead us down a rabbit hole that isn’t worth the travel.  S.H.I.E.L.D. can probably be liable for your medical costs, but there are inherent problems with suing a clandestine black-ops organization staffed predominantly with super-powered beings.  Chiefly, how can you know such an organization even exists?  To the best of my recollection, the finale of The Avengers had various news reports blaming the team individually for the destruction and nary a mention of their handler organization was to be found anywhere.  As far as the public is concerned S.H.I.E.L.D. doesn’t officially exist.  And even if you were to somehow hale them into court, you're only going to anger them.  And we all know what happens when you get Bruce Banner angry.

Besides, there’s lower hanging fruit to be had.

You can sue Tony Stark in his individual capacity for negligent rescue.  After all, he’s a billionaire and can afford it.  Not only that, he’s the sole member of the Avengers whose real life identity is known to the public at large.   A lawsuit against Stark sounding in negligence is a goodly bet.

In tort law, there is generally no duty to rescue someone in distress.  However, if you do commence a rescue, it must be done reasonably.  Any defendant who rescues unreasonably can be liable under a negligence action if the aggrieved party is injured as a result of the unreasonable rescue.  In this case, there’s no legal precedent instructing us how to deal with an armored man wearing jet boots leading an alien horde bent on destruction through the city.  Even still, I would be willing to argue in front of a judge that Stark’s actions, though well intentioned, were unreasonable.  Why?

1. At extreme speed, Stark led hundreds of aliens on a chase through the canyons of Manhattan, weaving in and out of columns, buildings, and directly into heavily trafficked areas.  Any professional driver will tell you that as velocity increases, there’s an inverse relationship with control (there’s a reason the world’s fastest cars are driven in the middle of the desert… they can’t stop and don’t corner).  Stark would know this due to his extensive time in the Iron Man prosthesis.
2. Both Stark and his alien nemeses fired lasers at each other for the duration of this chase.  Logic tells us how difficult it is to hit a moving target; it is even more difficult when both targets are moving at great speed.  The likelihood of both Stark and the Chitauri warriors accidentally striking bystanders and real property with their laser blasts is increased exponentially.  Moreover, Stark is a world-renowned genius (he built a fist-sized fusion reactor in a cave with only spare missile parts, after all).  He either knew or should have known the likelihood of causing bystander injury, yet he continued to lead chase through Manhattan.
3. Later in the battle, Stark led a hundred foot long space snake directly down Park Ave into the path of Bruce Banner, whose ability to stop the snake was, as far as Stark is concerned, highly questionable.  At this point in the battle, Banner had not yet transformed into the Hulk and had not demonstrated to his teammates that he could call out the Hulk at his command (it was pretty awesome though, right?).  As far as Stark knew, he was leading that beast right into the heart of Manhattan where it would crash into the team, killing every member of the Avengers, destroying a significant part of mid-town, and possible murdering hundreds – if not thousands – of innocent New Yorkers.

When you willfully undertake a rescue that could wind up killing thousands, that is per se unreasonable.  If I were a lawyer in the Marvel Universe, I would be unhesitant in representing a class-action suit against Tony Stark in his individual capacity.

There may be more causes of action that I just can’t think of at the moment, but I think Stark is your best bet to recover damages in a case like this.  And honestly, you’re lucky if you get injured in an attack that was prevented by Iron Man.  Imagine if all that damage were caused by a hero with no assets... like Aquaman.