Full Version: Booby Traps
I haven't seen a thread devoted to this topic yet:
Katko v. Briney
Questions for Debate:
1. If a criminal of ill-intent accidentally detonates a trap in the course of his wrong doing, should they, or the trap maker, be liable for the injury?
2. If you believe the trap-maker should be liable, should they be able to dodge liability by giving adequate warning of the trap? (signs, posters, etc)
3. If you believe the criminal should be liable, do you believe that lethal force is justified to prevent petty crimes?
QUOTE
Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971), was a famous tort case decided by the Supreme Court of Iowa, in which a homeowner (Edward Briney) was held liable for battery for injuries caused to a trespasser who set off a spring gun set as a mantrap in an abandoned house on the homeowner's property.
Case Brief: Briney mounted a spring loaded shotgun in his unoccupied house, the shotgun severely injured Katko’s leg when he tried to break into the house. Katko sued.
Facts: The defendant owned an old unoccupied farmhouse Iowa, the property was boarded up, had NO TRESPASS signs around it, and had been unused and was in a deteriorating condition for several years. Briney was very upset with the constant burglaries and break-ins into his farmhouse. To solve this issue, Briney mounted a 20-gauge spring-loaded shotgun into his bedroom to fire when the door was opened. The gun was aimed to shoot an intruders legs so as not to cause a mortal injury. Five weeks later, Katko and a companion broke in to the farmhouse with in the intent of stealing some old bottles and dated fruit jars which Katko considered antiques. Upon entering the bedroom, the trigger mechanism was tripped and the shot detonated point blank onto Katko’s leg. The injuries sustained where severe enough for Katko to have to face hospitalization. Katko sued after his release.
Judgment: The court ruled for Katko, and he was awarded $20,000 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.
Case Brief: Briney mounted a spring loaded shotgun in his unoccupied house, the shotgun severely injured Katko’s leg when he tried to break into the house. Katko sued.
Facts: The defendant owned an old unoccupied farmhouse Iowa, the property was boarded up, had NO TRESPASS signs around it, and had been unused and was in a deteriorating condition for several years. Briney was very upset with the constant burglaries and break-ins into his farmhouse. To solve this issue, Briney mounted a 20-gauge spring-loaded shotgun into his bedroom to fire when the door was opened. The gun was aimed to shoot an intruders legs so as not to cause a mortal injury. Five weeks later, Katko and a companion broke in to the farmhouse with in the intent of stealing some old bottles and dated fruit jars which Katko considered antiques. Upon entering the bedroom, the trigger mechanism was tripped and the shot detonated point blank onto Katko’s leg. The injuries sustained where severe enough for Katko to have to face hospitalization. Katko sued after his release.
Judgment: The court ruled for Katko, and he was awarded $20,000 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.
Katko v. Briney
Questions for Debate:
1. If a criminal of ill-intent accidentally detonates a trap in the course of his wrong doing, should they, or the trap maker, be liable for the injury?
2. If you believe the trap-maker should be liable, should they be able to dodge liability by giving adequate warning of the trap? (signs, posters, etc)
3. If you believe the criminal should be liable, do you believe that lethal force is justified to prevent petty crimes?
1. If a criminal of ill-intent accidentally detonates a trap in the course of his wrong doing, should they, or the trap maker, be liable for the injury?
Depends. If warnings were posted and ignored then I would say no liability for the trap maker.
2. If you believe the trap-maker should be liable, should they be able to dodge liability by giving adequate warning of the trap? (signs, posters, etc)
Yes
3. If you believe the criminal should be liable, do you believe that lethal force is justified to prevent petty crimes?
Depends. If its house break in and the family is there then yes. Otherwise no.
Depends. If warnings were posted and ignored then I would say no liability for the trap maker.
2. If you believe the trap-maker should be liable, should they be able to dodge liability by giving adequate warning of the trap? (signs, posters, etc)
Yes
3. If you believe the criminal should be liable, do you believe that lethal force is justified to prevent petty crimes?
Depends. If its house break in and the family is there then yes. Otherwise no.
QUOTE(BecomingHuman @ Feb 14 2008, 01:27 AM) 
I haven't seen a thread devoted to this topic yet:
Katko v. Briney
Questions for Debate:
1. If a criminal of ill-intent accidentally detonates a trap in the course of his wrong doing, should they, or the trap maker, be liable for the injury?
2. If you believe the trap-maker should be liable, should they be able to dodge liability by giving adequate warning of the trap? (signs, posters, etc)
3. If you believe the criminal should be liable, do you believe that lethal force is justified to prevent petty crimes?
QUOTE
Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971), was a famous tort case decided by the Supreme Court of Iowa, in which a homeowner (Edward Briney) was held liable for battery for injuries caused to a trespasser who set off a spring gun set as a mantrap in an abandoned house on the homeowner's property.
Case Brief: Briney mounted a spring loaded shotgun in his unoccupied house, the shotgun severely injured Katko’s leg when he tried to break into the house. Katko sued.
Facts: The defendant owned an old unoccupied farmhouse Iowa, the property was boarded up, had NO TRESPASS signs around it, and had been unused and was in a deteriorating condition for several years. Briney was very upset with the constant burglaries and break-ins into his farmhouse. To solve this issue, Briney mounted a 20-gauge spring-loaded shotgun into his bedroom to fire when the door was opened. The gun was aimed to shoot an intruders legs so as not to cause a mortal injury. Five weeks later, Katko and a companion broke in to the farmhouse with in the intent of stealing some old bottles and dated fruit jars which Katko considered antiques. Upon entering the bedroom, the trigger mechanism was tripped and the shot detonated point blank onto Katko’s leg. The injuries sustained where severe enough for Katko to have to face hospitalization. Katko sued after his release.
Judgment: The court ruled for Katko, and he was awarded $20,000 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.
Case Brief: Briney mounted a spring loaded shotgun in his unoccupied house, the shotgun severely injured Katko’s leg when he tried to break into the house. Katko sued.
Facts: The defendant owned an old unoccupied farmhouse Iowa, the property was boarded up, had NO TRESPASS signs around it, and had been unused and was in a deteriorating condition for several years. Briney was very upset with the constant burglaries and break-ins into his farmhouse. To solve this issue, Briney mounted a 20-gauge spring-loaded shotgun into his bedroom to fire when the door was opened. The gun was aimed to shoot an intruders legs so as not to cause a mortal injury. Five weeks later, Katko and a companion broke in to the farmhouse with in the intent of stealing some old bottles and dated fruit jars which Katko considered antiques. Upon entering the bedroom, the trigger mechanism was tripped and the shot detonated point blank onto Katko’s leg. The injuries sustained where severe enough for Katko to have to face hospitalization. Katko sued after his release.
Judgment: The court ruled for Katko, and he was awarded $20,000 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.
Katko v. Briney
Questions for Debate:
1. If a criminal of ill-intent accidentally detonates a trap in the course of his wrong doing, should they, or the trap maker, be liable for the injury?
2. If you believe the trap-maker should be liable, should they be able to dodge liability by giving adequate warning of the trap? (signs, posters, etc)
3. If you believe the criminal should be liable, do you believe that lethal force is justified to prevent petty crimes?
I am not familiar with this particular case, however I do have aquaintence with a family in a similar situation, but without the shotgun. Considering this break in as a petty crime I think has limited thinking. Sure, once or maybe even twice, but what actually happens is the repeated violation many times over. In this other family's situation that I am familiar with, they had inherited an old farm house. They intended on moving into it, but after some major renovations that they intended on doing themselves. After work and on weekends, they would go to the old house and continue their renovations. When they would show up, they would find that thousands of dollars worth of windows or siding would be missing. Hundreds, if not thousands of dollars of tools would be missing. Vandalism throughout the house. They lost tens of thousands of dollars in the process. I don't know if the courts would agree, but if I were on the jury, I would be able to justify the booby trap to protect one's property.
As for what is presented in this particual thread, I don't see how a criminal can be awarded money for breaking into someone's house. This case was decided by my state's supreme court. Doesn't surprise me at all.
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 14 2008, 07:35 AM)
1. If a criminal of ill-intent accidentally detonates a trap in the course of his wrong doing, should they, or the trap maker, be liable for the injury?
Depends. If warnings were posted and ignored then I would say no liability for the trap maker.
2. If you believe the trap-maker should be liable, should they be able to dodge liability by giving adequate warning of the trap? (signs, posters, etc)
Yes
3. If you believe the criminal should be liable, do you believe that lethal force is justified to prevent petty crimes?
Depends. If its house break in and the family is there then yes. Otherwise no.
Depends. If warnings were posted and ignored then I would say no liability for the trap maker.
2. If you believe the trap-maker should be liable, should they be able to dodge liability by giving adequate warning of the trap? (signs, posters, etc)
Yes
3. If you believe the criminal should be liable, do you believe that lethal force is justified to prevent petty crimes?
Depends. If its house break in and the family is there then yes. Otherwise no.
Why should we have to put up signs that say "Booby Trap in Bedroom"? The owner of the property put up 'No Tresspassing' signs. The law prohibits people from breaking into other peoples property. If the idiot that got shot in the leg hadn't broken in with the intent to steal property, he wouldn't have gotten shot. Simple as that. I don't see the justification of making someone pay a criminal that violated his property $30,000. That is an insult!
QUOTE
Why should we have to put up signs that say "Booby Trap in Bedroom"? The owner of the property put up 'No Tresspassing' signs. The law prohibits people from breaking into other peoples property. If the idiot that got shot in the leg hadn't broken in with the intent to steal property, he wouldn't have gotten shot. Simple as that. I don't see the justification of making someone pay a criminal that violated his property $30,000. That is an insult!
I didn’t say I agreed with it. But it would have protected him from the stupid judge.
Maybe a “NO Trespassing – Under PAIN of DEATH or serious INJURY “ would have worked.
In TX of course he could have just shot them dead and called the cops.
QUOTE
1. If a criminal of ill-intent accidentally detonates a trap in the course of his wrong doing, should they, or the trap maker, be liable for the injury?
2. If you believe the trap-maker should be liable, should they be able to dodge liability by giving adequate warning of the trap? (signs, posters, etc)
2. If you believe the trap-maker should be liable, should they be able to dodge liability by giving adequate warning of the trap? (signs, posters, etc)
Yes the trap maker should be liable. No a warning sign should not waive liability.
Look the guy who broke in should be charged with at the very least trespassing. However the trap was intentionally made to maim another human. And intentionally maiming another human while not acting in self defense is a crime right??
ScubaTim
QUOTE
As for what is presented in this particual thread, I don't see how a criminal can be awarded money for breaking into someone's house.
I agree, but then again, I don't think the money was awarded to the person, because they successfully broke into the house was it??
QUOTE
Yes the trap maker should be liable. No a warning sign should not waive liability.
I think that this case is a little bit more interesting than the "Joe Horn" situation. In this case, a mechanical device acted without emotion solely because of the presence of the thief. Had he not been engaged in the thievery, there would have been no damage.
While the law is clear, I don't think breaking and entering should also have this hidden, parallel right to be completely free of injury while committing the crime. To me, its a matter of personal responsibility. When I buy a stock, I am responsible for any and all risks associated with that stock. Perhaps more relevant to this situation: if I'm at a zoo, and decide to climb over a fence to get a better look at a polar bear, I am assuming the risk that the polar bear will maul me to death. Its unfair to sue the zoo for a risk I assumed when I climbed over the fence.
Robbery, like purchasing a stock, carries with it certain risks. The risk of getting caught is the most obvious one, but there are other risks as well, such as security systems, guard dogs, portals into the fifth dimension and, sometimes, crazy owners who put traps around their house. By knowingly breaking into the house, the risks of the action are assumed.
It only becomes more responsibility-defying when signs are plastered around the house, giving the robber what should be a frank reminder of what they're about to get involved in.
By establishing rights for breaking and entering, the government is eliminating risk, and therefore, "subsidizing" theft. The logical result of granting thieves injury rights is that the amount of theft will increase, because disincentives will decrease.
Questions for Debate:
1. If a criminal of ill-intent accidentally detonates a trap in the course of his wrong doing, should they, or the trap maker, be liable for the injury?
The criminal is responsible. Otherwise, any injuries sustained by a fleeing suspect whose car crashes after crossing a police spike strip are the responsibility of the public.
2. If you believe the trap-maker should be liable, should they be able to dodge liability by giving adequate warning of the trap? (signs, posters, etc)
Trap maker is not liable. However, the risky element for the trap maker is that a true innocent may wander into the trap, in which case the trap maker is in deep doo-doo.
3. If you believe the criminal should be liable, do you believe that lethal force is justified to prevent petty crimes?
Define "petty crime." Unlike some, I don't consider property crimes to be automatically "petty." Shoplifting a bag of M&M's is petty, shoplifting $60,000 worth of jewelry isn't, yet both are 'shoplifting.' The problem with any level of "automated force" as a preventive measure is linking the level of force with the severity of a crime that hasn't been fully realized. Is the B&E expert just after some munchies, or is she going to do hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage? Entry traps can't answer that question. Is the kid stealing the Ferrari just going for a joy ride, to be found in the morning in a quiet parking lot, out of gas, with Doritos crumbs in the footwell, is is the car destined for a 40' container and a trip out of the country the next day?
1. If a criminal of ill-intent accidentally detonates a trap in the course of his wrong doing, should they, or the trap maker, be liable for the injury?
The criminal is responsible. Otherwise, any injuries sustained by a fleeing suspect whose car crashes after crossing a police spike strip are the responsibility of the public.
2. If you believe the trap-maker should be liable, should they be able to dodge liability by giving adequate warning of the trap? (signs, posters, etc)
Trap maker is not liable. However, the risky element for the trap maker is that a true innocent may wander into the trap, in which case the trap maker is in deep doo-doo.
3. If you believe the criminal should be liable, do you believe that lethal force is justified to prevent petty crimes?
Define "petty crime." Unlike some, I don't consider property crimes to be automatically "petty." Shoplifting a bag of M&M's is petty, shoplifting $60,000 worth of jewelry isn't, yet both are 'shoplifting.' The problem with any level of "automated force" as a preventive measure is linking the level of force with the severity of a crime that hasn't been fully realized. Is the B&E expert just after some munchies, or is she going to do hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage? Entry traps can't answer that question. Is the kid stealing the Ferrari just going for a joy ride, to be found in the morning in a quiet parking lot, out of gas, with Doritos crumbs in the footwell, is is the car destined for a 40' container and a trip out of the country the next day?
1. If a criminal of ill-intent accidentally detonates a trap in the course of his wrong doing, should they, or the trap maker, be liable for the injury?
One of the most important rights that a person has is the right to protect one's property and the lives of their family. I see no problem with setting a booby trap in this instance, particularly if the trap was not meant to cause mortal injury. What if the homeowner met the the intruder on the property and shot him in the leg then, does it really change the situation?
2. If you believe the trap-maker should be liable, should they be able to dodge liability by giving adequate warning of the trap? (signs, posters, etc)
No warning should be necessary. You should not be intruding on a neighbor's property in the first place. Giving a warning that intruders will be injured is dependent on the fact that someone will intrude, which they shouldn't be doing.
3. If you believe the criminal should be liable, do you believe that lethal force is justified to prevent petty crimes?
This was non-lethal force. Lethal force would have had the shotgun aimed at the torso or head. Furthermore, how does a property owner know that an intruder is intending to commit a petty crime and not something more dangerous such as a kidnapping, murder, etc...? The fact of the matter is that if the person was not violating the law in the first place, they would not be injured.
One of the most important rights that a person has is the right to protect one's property and the lives of their family. I see no problem with setting a booby trap in this instance, particularly if the trap was not meant to cause mortal injury. What if the homeowner met the the intruder on the property and shot him in the leg then, does it really change the situation?
2. If you believe the trap-maker should be liable, should they be able to dodge liability by giving adequate warning of the trap? (signs, posters, etc)
No warning should be necessary. You should not be intruding on a neighbor's property in the first place. Giving a warning that intruders will be injured is dependent on the fact that someone will intrude, which they shouldn't be doing.
3. If you believe the criminal should be liable, do you believe that lethal force is justified to prevent petty crimes?
This was non-lethal force. Lethal force would have had the shotgun aimed at the torso or head. Furthermore, how does a property owner know that an intruder is intending to commit a petty crime and not something more dangerous such as a kidnapping, murder, etc...? The fact of the matter is that if the person was not violating the law in the first place, they would not be injured.
1. If a criminal of ill-intent accidentally detonates a trap in the course of his wrong doing, should they, or the trap maker, be liable for the injury?
No, in fact, we should reform tort law to go the other direction- allow the property owner to sue the intruder for damages, including 1 million times actual damages to property. Possibly life in prison without possibility of parole if the intruder harms himself- as punishment for harming himself
I don't even think the property owner should have to warn of booby traps- however- if the booby traps are easily accessed by accident- say, a curious five year old walks into one in someone's back yard- I believe that would be negligence to keep your property safe in terms of accidental, non-malicious trespass.
You can't go killing or harming innocent folks that just got lost! The burden of proof should lie on how difficult it is to access the boobytraps- if you have to go all B&E to get to them- and are there for criminal intent- the property owner should be able to sue the intruder and keep them financialy broke and destitute and in jail for life.
2. If you believe the trap-maker should be liable, should they be able to dodge liability by giving adequate warning of the trap? (signs, posters, etc)
The only warning should be clearly visible in case of accidental trespass. A locked building that needs some serious effort to break into should need no warnings at all. And the property owner should be rewarded based on body counts. I am not joking on the last. Ridding the earth of thieving scum should be rewarded handsomely.
3. If you believe the criminal should be liable, do you believe that lethal force is justified to prevent petty crimes?
Though this was non-lethal, I would support lethal force, perhaps in a excruciating manner even. The criminal should even be liable for the cost of the booby trap, and if he/she dies, the executor of the estate should be charged the cost of the bullet.
No, in fact, we should reform tort law to go the other direction- allow the property owner to sue the intruder for damages, including 1 million times actual damages to property. Possibly life in prison without possibility of parole if the intruder harms himself- as punishment for harming himself
I don't even think the property owner should have to warn of booby traps- however- if the booby traps are easily accessed by accident- say, a curious five year old walks into one in someone's back yard- I believe that would be negligence to keep your property safe in terms of accidental, non-malicious trespass.
You can't go killing or harming innocent folks that just got lost! The burden of proof should lie on how difficult it is to access the boobytraps- if you have to go all B&E to get to them- and are there for criminal intent- the property owner should be able to sue the intruder and keep them financialy broke and destitute and in jail for life.
2. If you believe the trap-maker should be liable, should they be able to dodge liability by giving adequate warning of the trap? (signs, posters, etc)
The only warning should be clearly visible in case of accidental trespass. A locked building that needs some serious effort to break into should need no warnings at all. And the property owner should be rewarded based on body counts. I am not joking on the last. Ridding the earth of thieving scum should be rewarded handsomely.
3. If you believe the criminal should be liable, do you believe that lethal force is justified to prevent petty crimes?
Though this was non-lethal, I would support lethal force, perhaps in a excruciating manner even. The criminal should even be liable for the cost of the booby trap, and if he/she dies, the executor of the estate should be charged the cost of the bullet.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.