Katko v Briney Case Brief 2020 PDF

Preview

Summary

2020 Torts Law I Case Brief - Katko v Briney...

Description

Defense of property Katko v. Briney Supreme Court of Iowa, 1971 183 N.W.2d 657 FACTS Parties: Plaintiff: Defendant: Procedural History: Jury ruled in favor of plaintiff for $20,000 actual damages and $10,000 punitive damages Relevant Facts: o o o o o o o o o

The house had been abandoned for some time and was continuously getting broken into The defendants’ boarded up the house in an attempt to stop intrusion and also posted “no trespass” signs The defendant in June 11, 1967 set up a “shotgun trap” in the north bedroom- it was rigged to shoot if the door was open The gun was originally set up to hit the intruder in the stomach but the defendant’s wife had him move it to shoot in the legs There was no warning of the guns presence The plaintiff and companion broke into a house to find and steal old bottles and dates fruit jars which they considered to be antiques Plaintiff entered the house by removing a board covering an unsealed window He was hit in the right leg above the ankle bone , much of his leg and part of his tibia was blown off He remained in the hospital for 40 days

ISSUE: Whether a property owner may defend his property through violent means? PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS: Defendant: o o

put the gun there bc he was mad and tired of being tormented but did not intend to kill anyone the law permits use of a spring gun in a dwelling or warehouse for the purpose of preventing the unlawful entry of a burglar or thief

Plaintiff: HOLDING: trial court judgment is affirmed

Defense of property DISPOSITION OF THE COURT: o o

the trap set to protect uninhabited land was not legal he would have been justified had he used deadly force if he had been present at the time of the burglary and if he feared his life in danger

RULE OF LAW: o

It is well established principle of law that there is no privilege to use deadly force solely in defense of land or property unless there exists a threat to one’s personal safety as well

DISSENT: o o o o

Justice Larson The trial court did not tell the jury that the installation was not made with the intent or purpose of striking or injuring the plaintiff The laws discussed only apply to trespassers not thieves Punitive damages should not be allowed where the plaintiff’s conduct was criminal...