Chief Justice C. Edwin Moore Associate Justices Robert L. Larson · William Corwin Stuart · M. L. Mason · Francis H. Becker · Warren J. Rees · Maurice E. Rawlings · Clay LeGrand · Harvey Uhlenhopp
Case opinions
Landowner had a duty not to set potentially deadly traps for trespassers.
Decision by
Moore
Dissent
Larson
Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971), was a court case decided by the Iowa Supreme Court, in which two homeowners (Edward and Bertha Briney) were 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 homeowners' property.[1] The case thereafter received wide attention in legal circles, becoming a staple of tort law casebooks and law school courses.[2][3]
Bertha Briney inherited an old farmhouse in Mahaska County, Iowa, which the Brineys had left vacant for the last ten years prior to the incident. They had the farmhouse boarded up and placed "No Trespassing" signs around the property. The farmhouse was in poor condition and was subject to frequent burglaries and break-ins.
Marvin Katko worked regularly as a gasoline station attendant in Eddyville, seven miles from the Brineys' farmhouse. In 1967, the area around the house was covered with high weeds; Katko had observed it for several years while hunting in the area and considered it to be abandoned. Prior to July 16, 1967, Katko and his friend Marvin McDonough had been to the premises and found several old bottles and fruit jars which they stole and added to their collection of antiques.
To defend the house against further intruders and theft, Edward Briney mounted a 20-gauge spring-loaded shotgun in the farmhouse and rigged it to fire when the north bedroom door was opened. Bertha suggested aiming the gun downward to shoot towards an intruder's legs, rather than cause a mortal injury. Edward Briney also covered the bedroom window with steel.
On July 16, 1967, Katko and McDonough again entered the farmhouse with the intent of stealing more old bottles and dated fruit jars that Katko considered antiques. When Katko entered the bedroom, he tripped the trigger mechanism and the shotgun fired into his right leg at point-blank range. Much of Katko's leg, including part of the tibia, was blown away. Only by McDonough's assistance was Katko able to get out of the house.[4] The gunshot wound was sufficiently severe to require hospitalization, where Katko remained for 40 days.
Garold Heslinga of Oskaloosa, Iowa, was the attorney for the appellee (Katko) and Bruce Palmer and H.S. Life. also of Oskaloosa, Iowa, represented the appellants (Brineys).
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. The plaintiff's status as a trespasser is irrelevant when assessing liability in this case.
The case is notable for the proposition that, although a landowner has no duty to make his property safe for trespassers, he may not set deadly traps against them, holding that "the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property." The court thus ruled for Katko, entering judgment for $20,000 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.
Aftermath
The Brineys sold 80 of their 120 acres (0.49km2) to pay the judgment while proceeding with an appeal. Three of the Brineys’ neighbors bought the property at auction, paying $1 more than the minimum bid of $10,000. After the appeal was denied, they made a leaseback arrangement with the Brineys, but eventually one sold his share to his son for a profit. The Brineys and Katko then joined in a lawsuit against the neighbor to create a constructive trust on the profit, but the case was settled before trial in an amount sufficient to close out the judgment against the Brineys.[5]
As Katko's injury was misreported by the United Press Internationalwire service as having taken place in the Briney residence, several states introduced what were called "Briney Bills" for self-defense, which was not at issue in the case. The Nebraska Legislature act, stating that "no person... shall be placed in... jeopardy... for protecting, by any means necessary, himself, his family, or his real estate property", was overturned due to improper delegation of sentencing authority in State v. Goodseal (1971).[5]
Four years after the case was decided, Edward Briney was asked if he would change anything about the situation. Briney replied, "There's one thing I'd do different, though: I'd have aimed that gun a few feet higher."[6] Marvin Katko's own home was burgled in 1976, with burglars making off with several valuables. Katko would later end his own life on November 15, 1994, using a gun in the front yard of his home.[7]
↑ Andrew J. McClurg, "Poetry in Commotion: Katko v . Briney and the Bards of First-Year Torts", The Law Teacher (Fall 1996), p. 1.
↑ Walter E. Volkomer, An Introduction to Law: A Casebook (1994), p. 7.
↑ Schwartz; Kelly; Partlett (2020). Prosser, Wade, Schwartz, Kelly and Partlett's Cases and Materials on Torts (14thed.). West Academic. pp.129–129. ISBN978-1684674077.
↑ "Self-inflicted gunshot ends life of controversial Eddyville man". Ottumwa Courier. November 22, 1994. p.1. Katko himself was apparently the victim of burglars in February 1976. He reported to the Wapello County Sheriff's Department that a camera, guns and antique clocks were stolen from his home. Two days later, he reported several rifle shots fired at his home. He said at the time he did not believe the burlgary or gunshots were related in any way to the Briney case.
Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.
Anthony Edward Martin is a farmer from Norfolk, England, who shot a burglar dead in his home in August 1999. There was much sympathy for Martin and enthusiastic support for the right to defend one's own home. However, prosecutors cast doubt on his evidence and pointed out that he did not have a valid firearms certificate. Martin was convicted of murder, later reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility and served three years in prison, having been denied parole.
This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.
Trespass to chattels is a tort whereby the infringing party has intentionally interfered with another person's lawful possession of a chattel. The interference can be any physical contact with the chattel in a quantifiable way, or any dispossession of the chattel. As opposed to the greater wrong of conversion, trespass to chattels is argued to be actionable per se.
A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used. The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws.
Trover is a form of lawsuit in common law jurisdictions for recovery of damages for wrongful taking of personal property. Trover belongs to a series of remedies for such wrongful taking, its distinctive feature being recovery only for the value of whatever was taken, not for the recovery of the property itself.
The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts in some jurisdictions. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. The doctrine is designed to protect children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object, by imposing a liability on the landowner. The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property.
A bright-line rule is a clearly defined rule or standard, composed of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation. The purpose of a bright-line rule is to produce predictable and consistent results in its application. The term "bright-line" in this sense generally occurs in a legal context.
Trespass to land is a common law tort or crime that is committed when an individual or the object of an individual intentionally enters the land of another without a lawful excuse. Trespass to land is actionable per se. Thus, the party whose land is entered upon may sue even if no actual harm is done. In some jurisdictions, this rule may also apply to entry upon public land having restricted access. A court may order payment of damages or an injunction to remedy the tort.
Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.
In tort common law, the defense of necessity gives the state or an individual a privilege to take or use the property of another. A defendant typically invokes the defense of necessity only against the intentional torts of trespass to chattels, trespass to land, or conversion. The Latin phrase from common law is necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura privata. A court will grant this privilege to a trespasser when the risk of harm to an individual or society is apparently and reasonably greater than the harm to the property. Unlike the privilege of self-defense, those who are harmed by individuals invoking the necessity privilege are usually free from any wrongdoing. Generally, an individual invoking this privilege is obligated to pay any actual damages caused in the use of the property but not punitive or nominal damages.
A spring-gun, booby trap gun etc is a gun, often a shotgun, rigged to fire when a string or other triggering device is tripped by contact of sufficient force to "spring" the trigger so that anyone stumbling over or treading on it would discharge the gun. Setting or maintaining a spring-gun is illegal in many places.
A mantrap is a mechanical physical security device for catching poachers and trespassers. They have taken many forms, the most usual being like a large foothold trap, the steel springs being armed with teeth which meet in the victim's leg. Since 1827, they have been illegal in England, except in houses between sunset and sunrise as a defence against burglars.
Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian tort law originally derives from that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile, while private law as a whole in Québec was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of tort law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.
Shopkeeper's privilege is a law recognized in the United States under which a shopkeeper is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, so long as the shopkeeper has cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit, theft of store property.
Conversion is an intentional tort consisting of "taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession". In England and Wales, it is a tort of strict liability. Its equivalents in criminal law include larceny or theft and criminal conversion. In those jurisdictions that recognise it, criminal conversion is a lesser crime than theft/larceny.
The Penal Law of the State of New York combines justification and necessity into a single article, Article 35. "Defense of Justification" comprises sections 35.05 through 35.30 of the Penal Law. The general provision relating to necessity, section 35.05, provides:
§ 35.05 Justification; generally.
Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:
The eggshell rule is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.
Mary Partington was a retired schoolteacher and goat farmer who is best known for shooting and accidentally killing an intruder in her home in 1966 near Lincoln, Nebraska. The incident gave rise to her nickname, "Bloody Mary," and a series of rumors about her supposed cruelty.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
