If a crooks breaks into my house and tries to rob me, then trips and breaks his neck because I’ve got a speaker wire, a dog toy, or something unsafe on my floor, can he legally sue me, and win? This is assuming that the person is totally unknown to me, trespassing and has intent to steal. And that the item he falls over was not left as some kind of deadfall trap.
Can you extend this to my yard? If he’s sneaking though my backyard and trips over a lawn gnome, breaking a leg, can he sue? Under what legal theory could someone hope to win in a case like this?
I ask because I’ve long wondered how many stories you hear of crooks sueing victems are simply urban legends and how many are true.
There is some truth to these stories, although I have a feeling that in modern suits, it is simply the homeowner’s insurance company attempting to avoid litigation costs and settling the claim.
A duty is owed to all people who enter your property. The greatest duty is owed to people you invite onto your property for the purpose of transacting business. For these people you must inspect to make sure that dangerous conitions do not exist. As and example, think about the grocery store. If someone dropped a jar of pickles an you slipped on the brine, the store could be liable because they should have found the dropped jar and cleaned it up to protect you (remember, you came there to transact business).
The least duty is owed to people who trespass on your property. Nonetheless, a duty is still owed to make sure that attractive nuisances and overly/intentionally dangerous situations do not exist. So, for example, you can’t load a booby trap into your front door which cuts off the leg of someone trying to enter your house illegally. In addition, if you have special knowledge of a dangerous situation and there is only a small cost involved in taking the danger away, then there may be a duty to remove the danger (like covering a well that someone could fall into in your backyard).
If you violate these duties, you can be successfully sued. The actions taken by the robber/tresspasser may reduce the amount to which they would have otherwise been entitled, but they may still win.
Again, I think most of this is theoretical and that most money which robbers win in these things are through settlement with insurance companies. It should also be noted that in some cities and states, special laws have been passed to take away all but the most basic protection of burglars so that recovery is all but impossible so long as the homeowner didn’t act unreasonably or wantonly.
IIRC Tony Martin layed in wait with a loaded gun for these burglars, and when they tried to effect an escape he pursued them, shooting. This was considered not to be reasonable defence of ones property, and he was found guilty of murder of the suing-party’s accomplice (subsequently reduced to manslaughter on appeal). SDMB links here
Anyway, hardly related to the position as stated in the OP.
In the UK, at least, it is illegal to set mantraps, but as long as your “speaker wire” (or whatever) might be a danger around the household, if it wasn’t deliberately placed to cause harm it is unlikely the burglar could win a lawsuit.
The likelihood would be dramatically increased if the owner demonstrated perverse recklessness in leaving whichever dangerous object – if you happened to leave trip-wires around your house connected to shotguns a defence of no intent would be insufficient*.
IANAL.
*in fact, in a civil suit (being decided on balance of probabilities) such a plea would be redundant, even in a criminal case (eg murder) pleas of no intent carry little weight where reckless negligence is involved.
You’ve provided me some insight that I’ve never seen before. I assume you are a lawyer, but you make me think.
It’s stuff like you posted that gets me into trouble at times (me, working on behalf of the government). If I can minimize potential conflicts and sticky points, my life would be much easier .
I’ve kinda wondered about that, too. About a year ago, a patient of mine came in for new glasses because his old ones were part of the loot that a couple of local druggies stole from his house. The local cops knew who had done the theft (His wifes checks and his credit cards were found in their possestion, his wifes ring was on the womans finger, etc) but they were simply not doing anything about it. They had all the evidence, but didnt’ seem to feel the amount stolen was worth the time to take them to court. He wanted to sue at the time, but figured that they had no money to take in a judgement.
Makes me wonder what the law says if I sue my burgler? If I catch a guy in my living room tonight and hold him at bay with a shotgun, can I sue him for the DVD player he dropped, the window he broke and the carpet he peed on? As well as emotional distress? Does it matter if they guy is destitute? I may not get money, but he might owe me for life.
In his previous post, Tripler made a correct assumption. I am a lawyer and I have to tell you, you are correct about your ability to sue you burglar. He or she is liable to you for all damage that he or she might cause (including emotional damage if you can prove a close enough causal connection). You are also correct in assuming that the real problem is the fact that it is unlikely that your burglar will have funds with which to pay you after he or she loses the law suit. There is an old saying–“you can’t squeeze blood from a turnip.” If the burglar has no money, then he or she can’t pay you and going after them for money would not be worth your time.
There is one point on which you are, for the most part, incorrect. If the burglar owed you money but didn’t have it, he or she would not necessarily owe you for the rest of his or her life. In fact, once the judgment becomes final, he or she could declare bankruptcy and the debt would be deleted. At that point, you would be lucky to get a few measly nickels at best and that would come through a settlement approved by the bankruptcy court.
Rather than wait to recover from your burglar, the better investment might be to purchase a burglar alarm now so that the whole sticky situation can be avioded.
How about the suicidal guy who jumped in front of a NYC subway. He survived ,but lost both legs. As I recall NYC gave him $6million.(settlement) Moral-settle case when the plaintiff is in a wheelchair & defendant has deep pocket.
I do know that if you intentionally set a trap for a potential burglar, and they get hurt, they can sue and win. The case that established this was Katco v. Briney.
The Brineys had a vacation home that Katco kept breaking into. They got sick of it and set up some kind of trap, I can’t remember what, I think it had something to do with a shotgun. Katco breaks in again, trap goes off and his legs are blown off at the knees. (Bear in mind that this is a vacation home so the Brineys weren’t around.) Katco nearly bled to death and turned around and sued and won. The case established that even the life of a thief is more important than whatever they are trying to steal.
I remember learning about this case because most of the class was pretty pissed off that the Brineys didn’t have the right to really defend their property while they weren’t there. If Katco hadn’t been trying to steal, he’d still have his legs, but yet he gets money because he picked the wrong house to rob?
Right, everyone’s agreed, the situation as outlined in the original post “If a crooks breaks into my house and tries to rob me, then trips and breaks his neck because I’ve got a speaker wire, a dog toy, or something unsafe on my floor” would not leave Eirik open to a lawsuit.
But the rider “I ask because I’ve long wondered how many stories you hear of crooks sueing victems are simply urban legends and how many are true” remains unanswered, except by wildly different “cited” cases and possibly some and a pinch of urban legend. *
Anyone got any real, patently unreasonable cases that they could cite?
doctodoowop, do you have a cite for your New York subway failed suicide lawsuit: I googled but got nothing back that I could believe (basically I got a few hits for the story as you told it +/- several million dollars in the payout)?
doctordoowop, I can believe that it happened – I found several web-mentions, but between them they told an inconsistent story and provided few (if any) details.
And you see, the devil is in the details.
If this person had approached the station master (do NY subways have such a thing?) and said “I’m a suicidal manic-depressive and I’m gonna throw myself under one of your trains” and the reply came, “Go ahead, knock yourself out!” then I see a clearcut lawsuit (and so, I guess, would you).
That’s why I ask for more information, the sketchy outline provided is insufficient to make a judgement on.
Expanding on this thread, I heard if someone breaks in your house your better off from a legal stand (they could sue you and make quite a case) point killing them then shooting them in the leg(s) and calling the cops and ambulance. Is this true?
From a theoretical point of view, the thief’s estate could bring a lawsuit against you, so you would still have civil liability for shooting the thief.
From a practical point of view, killing the thief removes the only other eyewitness to the shooting from the case, which improves your odds of prevailing if you are sued. Dead men tell no tales.
What about playscapes and the like. If you throw a birthday party and some kid breaks an arm on your son’s playscape, are you liable? What if the playscape met all codes and safety standards? If there is still a liability issue, how do city parks keep from getting sued on a weekly basis?
Yes, you could be sued if the kid breaks his arm on your son’s toy. Doesn’t matter if it met safety standards. City parks don’t get sued on a weekly basis because kids don’t break their arms every week in the park. Also some people don’t want to sue … maybe they realize that their kid is a klutz and that it isn’t the park’s fault, etc.