The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - RD and other law types

Spoiler:

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 (Marvin Katko) 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 entered the house. Katko sued.

Facts: The defendant owned an old unoccupied farmhouse in 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 unoccupied farmhouse. To solve this issue, Briney mounted a 20-gauge spring-loaded shotgun in the farmhouse to fire when the north bedroom door was opened. The gun was aimed to shoot an intruder's legs so as not to cause a mortal injury. Five days later, Katko went into the farmhouse with the intent of collecting some old bottles and dated fruit jars that Katko considered antiques. Upon entering the room, the trigger mechanism was tripped and the shotgun fired into Katko’s legs at point blank range. The gunshot wounds sustained by Katko were sufficiently severe for him to require hospitalization. Katko sued Briney after his release from hospital.

Reasoning: The court ruled that using deadly force on intruders in an unoccupied property was not reasonable or justified. Briney would have been justified in defending himself with the shotgun if he had been home during the intrusion.

Judgment: The court ruled for Katko, and he was awarded $20,000 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.

The case stands for the proposition that, though a landowner has no duty to make his property safe for trespassers, he may not set deadly traps against them.

The notable quotation from the decision is:

"the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property"

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Mon May 31, 2010 6:39 pm ]
Post subject:	RD and other law types - discuss my fav non US SC case
Katko v Briney. Should a person be allowed to booby-trap their own property?

Author:	Müs [ Mon May 31, 2010 10:27 pm ]
Post subject:
No.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Mon May 31, 2010 10:40 pm ]
Post subject:
I'm not sure and I am not at all familiar with the particulars of the case. I am a fan of castle doctrine or a similar statute where defense of the Home shifts burden of proof of otherwise wrongdoing to the prosecution instead of it being an affirmative defense of the accused.

Author:	RangerDave [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:16 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RD and other law types - discuss my fav non US SC case
Elmarnieh wrote: Should a person be allowed to booby-trap their own property? No, I agree with the holding of the case. I don't think deadly force should be permitted purely in the defense of property (i.e. no one's home, so no risk at all to personal safety). On top of that, there are issues like "attractive nuisance" (risk that kids are going to come check out "cool" things like a quarry or a boarded-up house), necessity defense to trespassing (person in imminent danger of death/injury can legally trespass), legal entry (cops, firemen, tax appraiser, etc.), and so on.

Author:	Khross [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RD and other law types - discuss my fav non US SC case
Really? "Attractive nuisance" is a valid argument for abridging property rights?

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

RD and other law types - discuss my fav non US SC case https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3095	Page 1 of 4

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:34 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RD and other law types - discuss my fav non US SC case
Khross wrote: Really? "Attractive nuisance" is a valid argument for abridging property rights? There's also no valid arguments for maintaining firm property rights. The concept of ownership isn't more fundamental than protecting children from harm.

Author:	Dash [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RD and other law types - discuss my fav non US SC case
Is the Wiki version a fair assessment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney Spoiler: 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 (Marvin Katko) 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 entered the house. Katko sued. Facts: The defendant owned an old unoccupied farmhouse in 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 unoccupied farmhouse. To solve this issue, Briney mounted a 20-gauge spring-loaded shotgun in the farmhouse to fire when the north bedroom door was opened. The gun was aimed to shoot an intruder's legs so as not to cause a mortal injury. Five days later, Katko went into the farmhouse with the intent of collecting some old bottles and dated fruit jars that Katko considered antiques. Upon entering the room, the trigger mechanism was tripped and the shotgun fired into Katko’s legs at point blank range. The gunshot wounds sustained by Katko were sufficiently severe for him to require hospitalization. Katko sued Briney after his release from hospital. Reasoning: The court ruled that using deadly force on intruders in an unoccupied property was not reasonable or justified. Briney would have been justified in defending himself with the shotgun if he had been home during the intrusion. Judgment: The court ruled for Katko, and he was awarded $20,000 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. The case stands for the proposition that, though a landowner has no duty to make his property safe for trespassers, he may not set deadly traps against them. The notable quotation from the decision is: "the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property"

Author:	Khross [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RD and other law types - discuss my fav non US SC case
Lex Luthor wrote: Khross wrote: Really? "Attractive nuisance" is a valid argument for abridging property rights? There's also no valid arguments for maintaining firm property rights. The concept of ownership isn't more fundamental than protecting children from harm. Protecting children from harm is rarely the province of law.

Author:	RangerDave [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:37 am ]
Post subject:
Yeah, I've never been a big fan of the attractive nuisance doctrine generally, but I do think it's reasonable to apply it to affirmatively created risks like booby traps. If you have a boarded-up house and some kid falls through the rotten floor while trespassing, that's one thing, but if the kid gets his head blown off because you rigged a shotgun to the door knob, that's another. I don't think property rights are absolute. If you want society to enforce your property rights, you have to accept the limitations that come with being part of that society.

Author:	RangerDave [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:39 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RD and other law types - discuss my fav non US SC case
Dash wrote: Is the Wiki version a fair assessment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney Yeah, that's pretty much how I remember it from my Torts class. That quote, "the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property," is the crux of it.

Author:	Aizle [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:40 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
RangerDave wrote: I don't think property rights are absolute. This is the key part. NO right are absolute. None. And that is the part that libertarians don't agree with.

Author:	Khross [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:41 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
RangerDave wrote: Yeah, I've never been a big fan of the attractive nuisance doctrine generally, but I do think it's reasonable to apply it to affirmatively created risks like booby traps. Ehh, not really. What the trespasser breaking the law or not? Because you know as well as I do that Katko v. Briney established one of the worst civil liabilities doctrines ... ever. RangerDave wrote: If you have a boarded-up house and some kid falls through the rotten floor while trespassing, that's one thing, but if the kid gets his head blown off because you rigged a shotgun to the door knob, that's another. What's the difference? Post-Katko you're still liable for injuries suffered in either case. RangerDave wrote: I don't think property rights are absolute. If you want society to enforce your property rights, you have to accept the limitations that come with being part of that society. I know you don't think property rights are absolute. That said, without property rights, what rights do we have?

Author:	Khross [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Aizle wrote: NO right are absolute. None. And that is the part that libertarians don't agree with. Would you willingly die if the government decided your right to life was forfeit? Would you willingly serve as an indentured servant to the state?

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RD and other law types - discuss my fav non US SC case
Which is fine to believe, Aizle. But then what you are discussing aren't rights. You are discussing privileges.

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:49 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RD and other law types - discuss my fav non US SC case
Khross wrote: Lex Luthor wrote: Khross wrote: Really? "Attractive nuisance" is a valid argument for abridging property rights? There's also no valid arguments for maintaining firm property rights. The concept of ownership isn't more fundamental than protecting children from harm. Protecting children from harm is rarely the province of law. There's a lot of other examples... Some states have passed laws that prohibit the sale of unsafe cribs and are based on mandatory industry safety standards set by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Some laws specifically require safety inspections for cribs sold, while other laws are more general and mandate that no unsafe children's products be sold, including cribs. To protect children from accidents, at least 27 states have child firearm access protection and safe storage laws, according to the Legal Community Against Violence, a public interest law center dedicated to preventing gun violence. The federal Poison Prevention and Packaging Act applies in all states. This law authorizes the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to require the use of child-resistant packaging for toxic substances used in and around the home (such as aspirin, prescription drugs, and household chemical products like drain cleaners, automobile antifreeze and turpentine). Federal law currently regulates toys that pose a choking hazard to small children through the Child Safety Protection Act. To protect children from toxic toy poisoning, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) was established in 2009 and created new federal regulations which placed stricter limits on the lead content in children’s products. This act did not place limits on other toxic chemical such as cadmium, bisphenol-A (BPA), or phthalates. At least 30 states have passed legislation to ban or limit other harmful toxins in children’s toys The CPSC is authorized to oversee and regulate all traveling amusement park rides through a federal mandate. However, the regulation of fixed-site rides is left to each state. Currently at least 8 states have mandates about fixed-site amusement park rides pertaining to inspection, upkeep, rider respect, and/ or owner responsibility. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have state-wide bicycle helmet laws. Fifteen additional states have local laws requiring helmet use. There is a Federal Coast Guard Personal Floatation Device rule that requires all children twelve and under to wear personal flotation devices while aboard recreational vehicles. According to the National Program for Playground Safety, an outdoor play and safety research organization, at least sixteen states have passed legislation regarding playground safety, developed from the CPSC standards for playground safety. At least 12 states have laws related to swimming pool safety. All the laws vary in provisions and enforcement. However, each requires certain public or private pools to take one or more safety measures including certified lifeguards on duty, fences, alarms, safety covers, light fixture requirements, and safe spa and pool drain standards. The warning labels address the drowning hazard these buckets pose to young children. As a result California, for example, has developed a law requiring these warning labels to be placed on all 4 to 6 gallon buckets sold in the state. Forty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have safety belt laws. Thirty-one states have primary enforcement laws where an individual may be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt; nineteen states have secondary enforcement laws allowing seat belt citations if the individual is pulled over for another offense. These laws also vary by the age of passengers required to wear safety belts, specification of front or rear seats, and amount of citation fines. At least four children are killed in a non-traffic automobile accident every week. To address this issue the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act of 2007 was established. This federal act requires power window safety, rearward visibility, prevention in vehicle rolling, and upkeep of a database recording non-crash, non-traffic events involving motor vehicles. According to Kids and Cars, at least fourteen states have established specific laws to address unattended children left in vehicles. Even in states without unattended children statutes, individuals may be prosecuted in all states for leaving young children unattended in vehicles through child endangerment laws. From here: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14375

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:01 am ]
Post subject:
Max Eastman wrote: It seems obvious to me now--though I have been slow, I must say, in coming to the conclusion--that the institution of private property is one of the main things that have given man that limited amount of free and equalness that Marx hoped to render infinite by abolishing this institution. Strangely enough Marx was the first to see this. He is the one who informed us, looking backwards, that the evolution of private capitalism with its free market had been a precondition for the evolution of all our democratic freedoms. It never occurred to him, looking forward, that if this was so, these other freedoms might disappear with the abolition of the free market.

Author:	Aizle [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:12 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Khross wrote: Then you certainly believe some level of property is absolute. Self-ownership is a foundational tenet of Lockeian Liberalism (that which the U.S. is based upon). So I suspect we're getting hung up on "absolute". I really don't believe in absolutes, most especially when dealing with humans and society.

Author:	Mookhow [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:19 am ]
Post subject:
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. draws his lightsaber

Author:	Khross [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:51 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RD and other law types - discuss my fav non US SC case
Lex Luthor: I'm aware. That doesn't change the fact that those laws are neither necessary nor productive in most cases. Indeed, many of them resulted from one grieving mother's inability to accept the fact she **** up.

Author:	Aizle [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:54 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Khross wrote: Aizle wrote: NO right are absolute. None. And that is the part that libertarians don't agree with. Would you willingly die if the government decided your right to life was forfeit? Would you willingly serve as an indentured servant to the state? Probably not. Your point?

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:56 am ]
Post subject:
I think Khross has a good point... if you don't have a right to your property, why should you even have a right to your body? Where should the line be drawn? Isn't something you hold and own an extension of yourself? If you have a glove on your hand, should you have less rights to that than your hand?

Author:	Khross [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:00 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Aizle wrote: Khross wrote: Aizle wrote: NO right are absolute. None. And that is the part that libertarians don't agree with. Would you willingly die if the government decided your right to life was forfeit? Would you willingly serve as an indentured servant to the state? Probably not. Your point? Then you certainly believe some level of property is absolute. Self-ownership is a foundational tenet of Lockeian Liberalism (that which the U.S. is based upon).

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:04 am ]
Post subject:
I don't think Aizle sees any level of property as absolute. He just agrees with modern American societal norms... the norm is to not surrender your body.

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Aizle wrote: Khross wrote: Then you certainly believe some level of property is absolute. Self-ownership is a foundational tenet of Lockeian Liberalism (that which the U.S. is based upon). So I suspect we're getting hung up on "absolute". I really don't believe in absolutes, most especially when dealing with humans and society. Is rape absolutely wrong? Or are there instances where rape is acceptable?

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:24 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Rynar wrote: Aizle wrote: Khross wrote: Then you certainly believe some level of property is absolute. Self-ownership is a foundational tenet of Lockeian Liberalism (that which the U.S. is based upon). So I suspect we're getting hung up on "absolute". I really don't believe in absolutes, most especially when dealing with humans and society. Is rape absolutely wrong? Or are there instances where rape is acceptable? Consent is often ambiguous.

Page 1 of 4	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/