September 26, 2008
Trespass to land: Object doesn’t have to land on the land, you own the land above and below the land
(reasonable). Can have trespass, when you enter, but stay after the consent is over, or fail to remove
something you were supposed to.
Trespass brings about unanticipated damages.
Trespass to Chattels: Requires damages. Dispossession is damages. The fair market value of the rental
of the object while it was gone and the fair market value of the diminution.
Difference with Conversion: Conversion starts with what’s the remedy, is the fair market value of the
object at the time it was taken. What does P want? Do they want the property back? Yes (TTC) if no,
(conversion). If P asks for conversion, then the court has to look at the severity. Is the interference so
severe and permanent to say you bought it.
Affirmative defences: Burden of proof is on the defendant.
Consent: D has to show lack of consent.
The standard of whether there is consent or not is the
objective standard. Explicit, say it, implicit, do the circumstances say they gave consent. The burden is
to object or to speak up.
In sports, you are consenting to all the rules, but you consent to things which
are outside of the rules, things which are customary (reasonable person standard). A subjective lack of
consent isn’t going to make a difference.
Medical personnel are charged with clarifying the situation.
Emergency privilege- when time is of the essence, a delay would cause serious harm or death, no one
around, and it is reasonable to infer that the person would consent if they were conscious.
Defence of Property
Katko v. Briney
Supreme Court of Iowa, 1971
Law: 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 ones personal safety as well
Facts: Plaintiff Katko and a friend broke into the Brineys unoccupied farm house with the intention of
stealing some old bottles and dated fruit jars, which they considered to be antiques. Previous to this
break in, the defendants farm house had, at various times, been vandalized, broken into and some
household items had been stolen from it by person or persons unknown. About five weeks prior to the
break in by Katko and his companion, Mr. Briney had rigged a shotgun in one of the farm house
bedrooms so that it would go off when the bedroom door was opened from the outside. The shotgun
was pointed in such a way so that when it was triggered the shot would likely strike an intruder in the
legs. On the night of the break in, Katko opened the bedroom door and was shot in the leg by the
shotgun trap, suffering serious injuries for which he was hospitalized. Briney eventually plead guilty to
larceny in the nighttime of less than twenty dollars. He then filed this lawsuit.
Reasoning: The Iowa Supreme Court determined that the deadly force posed by Brineys shotgun trap