Katko v. Briney Case Brief

[Maggie White]

Hi everyone,

Here is my attempt at briefing Katko v. Briney. I would really
appreciate any comments/help/advice. Thanks,

Maggie White



Katko v. Briney (1971)

I. Facts.
-Plaintiff broke in to defendant’s unoccupied house and was shot by a
spring gun set up by defendant.
-Plaintiff sued defendant after being injured.
-Jury found for plaintiff
-Defendant appealed

II. Issues.
Can an owner protect personal property in an unoccupied boarded-up
farm house against trespassers and thieves by a spring gun capable of
inflicting death or serious injury?

III. Reasoning.
Rules:
-Landowners are prohibited from intentionally causing bodily harm to
trespassers.
-Spring guns will likely cause great bodily harm.
-Even though trespassers are violating the law, landowners still do
not have the right to intentionally inflict bodily harm on
trespassers, unless trespasser is himself endangering human life.
-Landowners are not permitted to set up devices capable of harming
intruders in a way that the landowner could not do himself if he were
there in person.
Policy:
-Preventing injury and protecting human life is more important than
preventing intruders (who are not causing bodily harm to owners) and
protecting land and property.

IV. Holding.
Landowners are liable for harm caused to trespassers by devices set up
with the intent to cause bodily injury to intruders for the purpose of
protecting unoccupied personal property.

[Erin Lain]

Magie,

Great job! I limited my reasoning a bit, but you got the gist! I put a
few more procedural facts in my facts section because professors love
to ask about that stuff, although it isn't essential to understanding
the case, or how the holding could apply to other situations (which is
what you will be doing on your final). The Profs like to know that you
understand the process the case went through to get to the Supreme
Court. Take a look at my example that I posted. Again, great! You
really got this!


- Erin