Today being Sunday, I decided to wallow in self-pity, which of course entailed watching lots of television. Among the poisonous brain candy I inflicted upon my eyes was one of the Home Alone movies–the third one, with the kid nobody remembers and the comely burglar in white. I could only bear to watch 5 minutes or so. Anyway, it occurred to me that only the fact that this movie and its forebears are basically live-action cartoons kept anyone from losing an eye, limb, or life. And that made me wonder: how much legal liability would the movies’ monstrous protagonists have been in if the laws of physics had been in effect during the stories?
The parents would be the ones to shoulder liability, especially since they left the kid behind while they flew out of the country. That alone should have triggered a CPS investigation which would have resulted in having ALL their kids placed in foster care, even without the burglars (who got beat up pretty bad, and in real life would have sued the family or even filed criminal charges.)
I always wondered why the burglars didn’t just tell the police about Macauley Culkin being in the house and the gauntlet he set up. At that point they were already in plenty of hot water anyway, so fessing up to trying to burglarize one more house wouldn’t have been a big deal. And they might even have been able to inflict a degree of revenge on the kid by having him placed in CPS.
It’s been a long time since I saw any of the movies and I don’t remember every scene, but I’ll give it a shot.
For the general booby-trapping of the house, no legal liability. I don’t think there’s any law to stop you from putting open paint cans on a swing line in your own home.
However, I recall one scene in one of the movies where Kevin taunted the burglars and dared them to come and get him, whence pratfalls ensued. I think that might have crossed the line, as the dare might have been considered an invitation. I think there was also a bit where he heated up the doorknob and one of the burglars burned his hand on it. Since it happened while the burglar was still on the porch, that probably was out of bounds.
As far as civil liability, sure the bandits could have sued. If there was just one incident a sympathetic jury might have awarded them some damages. After about the 12th such incident, however, most juries would come to the conclusion that the bad guys brought it on themselves.
I agree that the whole thing should have triggered a CPS investigation. After all, once is an accident, twice is a coincidence. But three times is too much.
Am I the only one who never wondered why didn’t take a bite of macaroni and cheese before nine o clock? I mean, yeah it was time to go, but why not grab a quick bite and run?
I think he’d be liable for booby-trapping. The “spring-gun case” is a staple of every first-year law school curriculum. Under the traditional rule, there is very little duty to a trespasser but you cannot use booby traps even to defend property.
I think he would probably NOT be liable for anything he actually did to the burglars while they were both in the house, though. The self-defense privilege is very broad once you are inside your own home. It dose vary some by state, though. But I think once they broke into his house, he probably could have killed them and gotten away with it.
First, the kid’s actions would have to be proven “criminal”, which would be hard to do because it was self-defense (albeit, he should have called 911 and nipped it in the bud). However, as a kid, he may be deemed as not having the capacity to make rational decisions, such as calling the cops. The perps, on the other hand were definitely engaging in criminal behavior, which pretty much nullifies their civil suit. However, if no criminal act could be proven on either side, this would be a civil case, and the perps would have to sue the parents’ homeowner insurance company. Let’s just say the insurance paid the maximum amount allowed under the liability portion of the policy…anything above that, the perps would have to go after the parents’ assets, hence the old saying by parents, “We’ll lose the house!” Could happen.
It would depend in part on the young offender laws governing the jurisdiction where it happened, and the age of the youth.
As I recall Home Alone I (the only one I saw), the kid was about 9 years old, right? If so, in Canada he would not have been committing any crime, as kids under 12 do not have the capacity to commit a criminal offence, and cannot be prosecuted for acts that would be a crime if committed by someone aged 12 or older.
I think burglary is an ‘assumed risk’ activity.
And good luck getting a jury to side with Joe Pesci.
Okay, but don’t you totally sympathize with the old man? Kevin kept screaming at him. Is it any wonder he snapped and now we have this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L13S-8cSwG0
Maybe they did. If you were a cop, would you believe 2 petty criminals you’ve just caught when they tell you a 9 year old kid set up a bunch of boobytraps in his own house that left them burned, bruised, punctured, lacerated, etc., etc? Especially when the kid had the whole thing cleaned up by the following morning?
Video of traps here.
The first thing he did on the night of the robbery was shoot Joe Pesci in the cojones with Buzz’s BB gun through the doggie door while the criminals were knocking. That’s clearly assault - even though he was sure they were there to rob the place, all they’d done to that point was knock on the door and ask him to open it.
He had a few external booby traps - the hot doorknob & the icy stairs. There was also the blowtorch over the kitchen door, which really an external one since it turned on as soon as you opened it.
He had multiple, couldn’t possibly have any other use internal booby traps - the nail in the stairs, the iron falling down the laundry chute, the glue, fan & feathers (even though that one wasn’t particularly damaging).
I’d say that especially given starting off with an assault before the criminals had done anything, he’d be criminally liable for a lot of assault & battery, maybe some mayhem. Except he was 8 or 9 in the movie.
If there injuries were consistent with the traps they claimed they’d been subjected to, then yes.
But, as MuldoonThief observed, Kevin had the whole thing cleaned up the next morning. So the cops hear this outrageous story from a pair of admitted burglars; naturally dubious, they go to the house and see nothing obvious. They don’t believe that the kid could possibly have done all that alone anyway, so they don’t press matters with Kevin and his family.
That’s true. Doesn’t his family also not realize what happened? I always wondered why he never told them about the burglary. And wouldn’t a cop at some point come by to question them/talk to them about Marv and Harry?
I think the first movie ends with the mother & rest of the family coming home, so we don’t see what happens when they notice all the crap Kevin’s done. I’ve never seen the second movie and only snippets of the third.
At the end of the first movie, the entire house is clean, with 2 exceptions - Buzz’s room is still trashed, but that had nothing to do with the burglary & booby traps - that was from Kevin climbing the shelves to get Buzz’s box o’ money & porn. And Pesci’s gold tooth is still on the floor - the dad finds it.
So say the police show up a few hours later, asking about some crazy story they got from “The Wet Bandits”. Will Kevin’s mom & dad admit “Oh gee, 9 year old Kevin has been home alone for the past several days, you’d better ask him about it”, or will they cover up “Oh no officer, we ALL just got home from Paris, and the house obviously hasn’t been touched in our absence, we have no idea what you’re talking about.”
In all fairness, that trial never went to jury. For all we know, he and the judge were in cahoots (rhymes with yoots).
IANAL, but I think I’d try and argue some kind of duress/diminished capacity. After all, he’s nine…and perhaps more importantly, after being accidentally abandoned, he apparently believed that he’d “made his family disappear.”
Clearly “magical thinking” add to that his house being attacked by known criminals—and some reports that he goaded them on—and it clearly becomes apparent that he’d become hysterical from fear and stress.
Hey, he THOUGHT he killed his family. Can we lock him up for thought crimes? Please?