I have read, and heard, stories about these scenarios. The burglar who chops a hole in the roof of a residence, then proceeds to fall through the hole, the ceiling and winds up in the hospital. A drunk tries to bash a young lady over the head at a bar, gets maced, breaks his leg because he cannot see that he is running into a drainage ditch. These examples say that in many cases where the Criminal is foiled by injuries sustained in the act, can and do successfully sue for damages.
My question is twofold…
Does or did this really happen, or UL???
If it does happen, why is there no defense for the victim. I know civil court has a different mindset than criminal, but doesn’t the act of committing a crime limit your recourse after the fact?
In the first case, the criminal created the dangerous situation by damaging the roof himself, so I don’t see how the householder would have any liability. In the second case, the mace would seem to be reasonable self-defence, so any consequences would by the drunk’s problem. Are there real cases like these where the criminal successfully sued for damages?
I will look for a cite, but many times jury awards that seem outrageous are eventually reversed.
I do not have any cites. Sorry. IIRC I read about those two, many years ago. The man who fell through the roof was a career criminal who hit mansions this way. Many people around me seem to believe that this happens. I also remember one where a homeowner’s dog choked on two or three fingers that he had bitten off of an intruder. I would think a jury would say, “You broke into a house, fell and got hurt, now you want to sue?!?!?! Tough $#!+ !!!”
I am hoping for something solid that says, UL. Barring that, maybe that the law has been overhauled to prevent such a thing.
That’s from one of the all-time classic urban legends, so famous that one of Jan Harold Brunvand’s books is titled The Choking Doberman.
As far as people coming on to your property, I believe you have different duties for 1) invited guests, 2) salesmen, and 3) trespassers. Regarding your liability to the third, I believe that you would you are only liable if the trespasser injured himself because of something illegal that you were doing. If you set a booby trap and the crook is injured on that, you may be liable. If the crook causes your meth lab to blow up, you may be liable for injuries he sustained. IANAL, though.
FWIW,
Rob
Here in Minneapolis, a stupid burglar tried to break into a local bookstore by sliding down a chimney flue from the roof (on Christmas day!). Despite taking off his clothes first, he was still too big and got stuck in the shaft. He was stuck there for a few hours before a passerby heard him and called 911. Otherwise he would have been there for 2-3 days until the stored opened again after Christmas, and probably would not have survived.
However, to get this burglar out, rescue workers had to cut through the roof of the store, and disassemble the furnace, chimney, and ductwork in the store. Repairing this was quite expensive (paying overtime rates for work during the Christmas holidays), and the cost all had to be paid by the store owner.
Depends mostly on the venue.
Depends partly on the crime; it may not matter if it’s a criminal act if it doesn’t constitute prima facie evidence of the criminal’s negligence.
But mostly, what vetbridge said: juries often swallow their common sense and reach a verdict based solely on the instructions of the judge. In many jurisdictions, legislation and case may mean that the homeowner or whoever IS at least partly liable.
Probably the store owner could have sued the burglar for the cost of repairs, but it would not have been worth it: most burglars don’t have much in the way of assets. However, the burglar was not recovering legal damages from the store owner.
Wouldn’t the owner’s insurance cover it? I assume the owner wasn’t the one who called the crews in; the police did. Would the city really sue the owner if he simply refused to pay the bill?
I think he meant the cost of repairing the damage, not causing it. I expect firefighters were the ones doing the tearing apart.
I know of an example of this. A person who will call Joe Druggy entered the home of an elderly couple, his sole purpose was to relieve them of any prescription medicines. As he left the bathroom he encountered the the gentleman who just happened to be armed with a shotgun. He dropped the bottles and when they hit the floor it apparently scared the old guy and he pulled the trigger. Joe ended up the a good chuck of the flesh and muscle from his left arm splattered all over the wall. While locked up he took the advice of a jail house attorney and sued for his injuries claiming the old guy used excessive force. By the time the lawsuit came to trial the old guy has passed away and his wife ignored the summons, Joe ended up winning a default judgment. When the house the elderly couple lived in sold a few years later, Joe collected on his lien and pocketed over $40,000.
I’ve heard of male victims of statutory rape being ordered to pay child support to their abusers, but can only find examples from Men’s News and other antifeminist sites. Does anybody know if this has really happened, and been held up on appeal (i.e. not that the court didn’t realize that the father was 13 when they ordered him to pay up)?
The owner came in to do some work while the store was closed to get ready for their big sale after Christmas, heard a voice crying out from inside the walls, and called 911. Police, Fire trucks, etc. came, and proceeded to demolish part of his roof, the chimney, shelving in the store, ductwork, etc. When they were done and had taken the burglar away, he called in carpenters & HVAC repairmen to repair the damages.
His insurance would have covered part of the damages, but after a previous claim they had canceled his coverage and he had a real hard time finding any insurance at all, so he ended up having to pay the entire repair cost himself.
The owner did file a claim for restitution with the County Attorney, but the burglar had no significant assets. The burglar could have worked while in prison for a year, and the store owner might have had a claim on his minuscule earnings from that (about $1 per day). But his claim would have been after that of the County Hospital, where that burglar spent several days recuperating from his 9 hours in the chimney (at taxpayer expense).
So you’re saying he probably should’ve kept quiet… :smack:
Well, the body would have to be removed sometime. The methods they would use to get a dead body as opposed to a live one out may have been less destructive, but the store owner would have been in about the same position financially regarding repairs.