Got a cite for that? You can file a frivolous lawsuit for any reason, can you actually find a case where an uninvited criminal (burglar, etc) hurt themselves on someone’s property and didn’t have the lawsuit they filed ejected by the judge?
Click on the link directly above your post.
I was noticing a high proportion of homeless-appearing people.
Which supports my point precisely. I quote, “The case stands for the proposition that, though a landowner has no duty to make his property safe for trespassers”
My point was that there’s no reason to fix that slippery step or that broken stairwell banister for the benefit of trespassers who might hurt themselves. That’s a totally different case from actively rigging up a shotgun to fire at someone who enters the unoccupied premises. From the case, " The Court ruled that using deadly force on intruders in an unoccupied property was not reasonable or justified. "
It in fact might be legal to set up such a trap if you were sleeping there! I always wondered what the legal status on sentry guns might be, the tech now exists that you could build one that would be reasonably accurate at firing at only human targets within it’s cone of coverage. (expecting it to ID friend from foe reliably enough that it never makes a mistake is too much to expect from current tech)
The fact that you wrote all that, that quickly, I assume that was a gotcha. You know you cut off the end of the judge’s quote.
For those that don’t click on it the full quote is “a landowner has no duty to make his property safe for trespassers, he may not set deadly traps against them” and further goes to say “the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property.”
I’d help you look up “sentry guns” but I’m not going to sit here and play gotcha with you anymore, maybe someone else will.
Doesn’t establish a gotcha. I feel you are debating in bad faith. The statement clearly supports my case. My case is that you are under no obligation to repair that weak spot in your roof because burglars might climb up there to break in. Or to use safety glass on your windows so they don’t cut themselves if they break a window to gain access. Or to fix that stairwell railing so they don’t hurt themselves when they walk down your stairs with your tv in their arms.
And the sentry gun case I specifically mentioned in my post above would apply only if you were sleeping there - it’s not to defend property, it would be to defend your life. Presumably the way it would work would be that you’d set them up covering all sectors of your property, and then you would receive a notification on your tablet if the sensors they use detect a human on the premises. The actual guns would be in weatherproof containers and separate from the sensing network. You the owner would then choose to call 9/11, activate sirens or lights, or just order the guns to shoot. The whole interaction would be logged to the cloud, so only if the intruders had guns or continued to approach despite the lights and sirens, would you reasonably not go to prison if you did this.
As you can imagine, there is a serious issue with computer hacking. I have some ideas as to how to make it secure (an arming device that is a separate, far more secure computer from the tablet would be needed) but that’s just a side comment.
I would have to do some hunting up for the cite but there was a (locally) famous case when I was growing up about a burgler on the roof of a school looking to break into it. He fell through a skylight that was painted over and successfully sued the school since the roof was “unsafe” as he couldn’t see the skylight in the dark.
Then we may be talking about different things. This was about booby traps, are you talking about someone that just happens to get hurt by accident while trespassing/burglarizing?
In that case, there’s Attractive Nuisance. A little different, but still, it shows cases where someone can illegally come on to your property, get hurt and it’s your fault. It’s why people with pools have to have fences. People with heavy equipment have to keep them secured so kids don’t screw around with them etc.
I just watched the video and I am absolutely appalled. If you’re going to tie an unlocked bike at the top of a hill to a 40 ft. cable and film the results, you should at least have the decency to leave a big pile of feces 45 ft. below the anchor point for them to do a faceplant into.
That was example like the op, where someone deliberately set a trap. You suggested that a burglar could successfully sue if they are injured on your property even you did nothing to deliberately endanger them. That is a big claim that needs a cite.
If one disabled the brakes on one’s old car and deliberately left the keys in the unlocked car to entice thieves, I’m pretty sure one would be looking at a prison-term.
This is no different.
Right - everyone agrees that if a homeowner does something with malice to injure a lawbreaker, he is very likely liable for damages. The issue is whether purported negligence by a homeowner for a criminal injuring themselves in not a reasonably foreseeable way (like walking over a skylight) exposes the homeowner to liability.
And those videos are fakey fake fake. And the makers of the video should be punished, just because they are terrible people.
I know this is a blog, but it was written by a lawyer so I assume it is somewhat reliable.
Can a Burglar Sue the Homeowner for Injuries?
The answer is pretty much a “no”, at least if you’re wondering if they have a chance to be successful beyond having it be a nuisance suit or push the defendant to settle. If the injured person is a trespasser, you can be liable if they are a frequent trespasser and you don’t warn of a hazard, or it’s a deliberate booby trap.
The skylight lawsuit mentioned above is almost certainly the infamousBodine v. Enterprise High School (Warning: Word doc). The reality is that it wasn’t a burglar, it was a 19-year-old kid playing basketball on the roof who stepped on a skylight by accident when adjusting a light on the roof. He was trespassing, but not a burglar. His wounds were hideous and he became a paraplegic, but received a nominal sum of $260,000 plus a monthly stipend as a settlement.
I’m curious about one thing though. What if you put warning signs claiming your property is booby-trapped with items that deliver deadly force (but don’t actually set up anything) just to dissuade would-be trespassers. Is that somehow illegal?
Another thing to point out, is that just because the video is staged, it doesn’t mean the filmmakers are immune from legal reprocussions
Just because you friend agrees to pretend to be a bike thief in your dumbass video it doesn’t mean he can’t sue if he breaks his back. And if someone ends up dead you would be just as liable to a manslaughter charge as anyone else making a film that gets someone killed
So far no real evidence has been provided to suggest that it was staged. Personally I find it hard to believe that the individuals shown in the video would have volunteered to subject themselves to a violent crash like that.
You should watch the Jackass movies then. Or go to youtube and search on “backyard wrestling fails.”
They have staged things before. It is going to be hard to find definitive proof because the people they’re hiring aren’t talking and they insist it isn’t staged. In my mind, it is clearly staged.
Take for example the video where they pick fights and they strip down to a mankini, ultimately resulting in a gun being pulled on them. Were they arrested? Was the guy who pulled the gun arrested? Were they shot? Beaten up by the guys they were challenging? No. You challenge enough people to a fight and sooner or later, mankini or not, you’re going to get punched in the face.
It is about as clearly staged as can be without a title card at the start saying “The following is staged and the participants paid for their participation.”
I can’t see how that would be illegal in any way. In fact, think about how many people have signs that say things like “Trespassers will be shot (survivors will be shot again)”, “Keep honking, I’m reloading”, various “homeowner armed” signs, all kinds of “warning, guard dog” or “beware of dog” signs.
It’s one thing to threaten a specific person, but to put up a sign saying that if they illegally come on to your property they may be harmed AND it’s a totally empty threat.
In fact, I think if you really wanted to argue it, it may be covered under Freedom of Expression. Specifically, that you have the right to impart information, even if it’s false.
But to keep it simple (and because this constitutional stuff goes over my head in a hurry), I can’t see how putting up a sign telling people that your house is booby trapped could be illegal. And, assuming it’s not against any law, it would be a civil thing, so someone would have to show they’re were harmed.
I linked to a youtube channel that has several videos busting prank videos, including a bunch by these guys. In some of them (like the shampoo prank from from another youtuber), they do talk to some of the people.
It certainly could be staged in the sense that they paid homeless guys $50 to hop on a bike with no brakes, but I doubt that it was staged in the sense that they hired professional stuntmen. Theft or no theft those guys had absolutely no idea what they were in for.