Katko v. Briney - Rational The court has always considered...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Katko v. Briney 183 N.W.2d 657 (1971) Fact: Operative Facts: The defendant owned a house by inhertance and it was relatively abandoned for an extensive period of time. It was subjected to many robberies and tresspasses. The defendant, sick of this, setted up a spring loaded shotgun, so that it would shoot anyone in the leg if they opened the bedroom door. The plaintiff came in the house and intended to steal some fruitjars because they considered them of value. They explored the home and the shotgun went off, blowing off one of his leg. His partner helped him out and he eventually recovered in the hospital, 40 days later. Issue: Whether there was a defense of property? Rule: In protecting property, you may only use non-lethal force, unless the property is human, and they’re threatening to kill or cause great bodily injuries.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Rational: The court has always considered life more important than property. The facts maybe different had the defendant actually were in the homes. However, no one was home, and the trap was too high of a deterrent to the crime Holding: Narrow: Traps that cost great bodily injuries cannot be set up on a property to prevent tresspasses or petty crimes that does not invovle life threatening crimes Broad:Traps, that causes serious bodily injuries cannot be installed to prevent crimes of un-felonious nature. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences: Dissent: states that, since there was no intent to cause great bodily injure or to kill someone when setting up the gun, then that defense could kick in. Also, he believes, no punative damages should be instated because the others broke in with the intent to steal....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online