In the case of Katko v. Briney, the plaintiff entered what he thought to be an uninhabited, abandoned home with the intent to get antique jars. He believed the house to be abandoned due to the lack of maintenance of the property. While in the process of finding the jars, the plaintiff triggered a spring gun trap, which blew away a portion of the plaintiff’s leg, including the tibia. The defendant was the owner of the home. Due to the house constantly being broken into, the defendant made an unseen spring gun trap in the north bedroom. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries from the spring gun trap and as a result has brought his case to court. The defendant gained possession of the property in 1957. In the ten-year period of 1957 to 1967, …show more content…
This was tried in front of a jury of the defendant’s peers whom were selected from the defendant’s community. The major issue with this case is if a person is allowed to exercise potentially deadly actions to protect their property when they are not in danger. The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the lower courts decision. This was in agreement with the similar cases of Hooker v. Miller, Allison v. Fiscus, and United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt. Many jurisdictions have also held a landowner criminally liable for serious injuries or homicide caused by a spring gun other set devices. I am in disagreement of the courts decisions. This is protecting the person who is breaking and entering the house unlawfully as opposed to the landowner. In this spring gun trap, the property owner had no idea of what the man breaking into his house could be looking for. This is for the protection of the owner of the house. It is possible that the intruder intended to do harm to whomever was on the property. There are no statutory provisions that govern the right an owner to defend their property by a spring gun or other devices. I would say that, unless the property owner is intending to kill or seriously injure the intruder, then the owner does not have absolute liability of the injuries that the intruder has
Part 3: Research Process for Jerry Newhouse Case • I would use Westlaw as my source to locate statutes and information to assist in my representation of the case. To begin my research on Mr. Newhouse ’s slip and fall case, I would go into Westlaw, select “State Materials”, “Michigan”, and then “Michigan Statutes and Court Rules.” From this page, I would type in the search bar “premises liability.” In the top right hand corner under secondary sources, there is a result that populated titled § 7.Premises liability.
This case was tried by jury, they found for the plaintiff and awarded $10 million in damages. Taser filed posttrial motions
The violation of statutory provisions by a landlord can qualify as a proximate cause for injuries to tenants in the case the surrounding environment was insecure and there was clear knowledge of intrusions into the given residential area. Ten Associates v. McCutchen Fla. App., 398 So.2d 860 (Fla.App. Ct. 1981). The landlord was legally obligated to positively respond to the plight of the tenants as their lease agreement put him responsible for any required repairs within the common area. The tenants, including Parker, had made numerous attempts to inform him of increased frequency of intrusion due to a broken deadbolt lock that he was mandated, according to the provisions of the statute, to promptly repair.
In response to the injured party, a defendant can file affirmative defenses to mitigate, or to some extent, rationalize their actions. In the Taukitoku case specifically, Taukitoku used the affirmative defense of self-defense as a rationale for the shooting. Likewise, Taukitoku may have had impaired judgment after Jacob Snyder hit him with a shovel. Self-Defense In the chain of events, Taukitoku had pulled out his gun and pointed it at multiple individuals, including the owner of the home, Jacob Snyder.
1. In this case a major fight broke out in the cafeteria. As officers tried to regain control of the situation, one of the prisoner’s fingers was broken. The prisoner does not have a case against the prison/officer.
INTRODUCTION Defendant Ms. Kalani Herrera ("Ms. Herrera") respectfully request the court grants Ms. Herrera 's motion for summary judgment and dismiss the plaintiffs, Mr. And Mrs. Malone 's ("Malones") personal injury claim. The Malones have a brought a personal injury lawsuit against Ms. Herrera under the attractive nuisance doctrine on behalf of themselves and their daughter Maria Malone ("Maria"), a minor who was injured on an a peace of land art while trespassing on Ms. Herrera 's property. However, the plaintiffs have failed to establish elements that are pertinent to the claim. Landowners typically owe no duty to trespassers however, the doctrine of attractive nuisance is an exception to
Henderson, acted with another to injure the Plaintiff, in attempt to steal his property. This case differs from ours in a few ways, the first being that the Defendant was acting alone in our case, in contrast to the Defendant working with another individual. People v. Henderson, 708 N.E.2d 165 (N.Y. 1999). The Defendant was had also attacked the Plaintiff not out of anger, but rather it was a “spearhead of a concerted physical attack aimed at forcefully taking the victim’s property”.
Imagine an individual, getting ready for their slumber. Now imagine an intruder breaking into there window with the intention to shoot anyone in its way. Recall that the homeowner is unable to legally defend himself and must retreat from the intruder. This scenario can be possible in all 50 states, but only Seventeen states do not give people the right to legally defend themselves, even if confronted with a person holding a weapon. This means a innocent person attempting to defend their family or himself would wrongly get accused if the intruder got injured.
Procedural History • The State of Minnesota convicted Kelbel in violation of first-degree murder, past pattern of child abuse, and second-degree murder. • The Supreme Court of Minnesota sentenced Kelbel to life in prison. • Kelbel first appealed that the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the violations. • Secondly, Kelbel appealed that the evidence presented was insufficient.
There have been cases where a concealed gun has saved lives other than their owns. Colorado Springs have had cases like that. In Colorado Springs, a man went crazy and killed four people before entering a church. A volunteer security guard, who was carrying a concealed carry permit and a licensed gun shot the man before he could kill any more people.
He and Clark M. Neily, gathered six people to be the plaintiffs. Dick Heller a police officer that carried a hand gun all day but wasn’t allowed to have one in his home. He wanted this law to be removed. The Supreme Court overruled the local law and allowed for gun ownership and adjusted the rules for guns.
I believe that this event is best classified as self-defense. Self-defense is defined as the defense of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime.
While Mrs. Mabee carried the jugs from the front door toward the back of the house, one of the jugs shattered and spilled on her body and on the dining room floor and furniture, causing severe damage. 2 & 3 -The Product was so defective that the product was unreasonably dangerous and cause the plaintiff’s injury. It was evident the product was defective since as soon the jugs were handed over to Mrs. Mabee by the delivery driver, the jugs shattered causing injury instantly. Jeanny