September 26 Cases and Notes

September 26 Cases and Notes - September 26, 2008 Review:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
September 26, 2008 Review: 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. 4. 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
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 11

September 26 Cases and Notes - September 26, 2008 Review:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online