Defense of Property Defense

Question 1

Bird v. Holbrook

Answer 1

i. Facts
1) The D had in his possession a walled garden where he grew expensive flowers, the garden also had a small summer home. After being burglarized, the D set up a spring gun with the intention of shooting any intruders to his garden. A 19 Yo boy entered the garden chasing after an escaped peacock and tripped the wire to the spring gun severely wounding his leg.
ii. Issue:
1) Can the P recover for injuries sustained when he entered the garden even though the injury was brought about during a wrongful act of trespass?
iii. Holding
1) P’s action is maintainable on the grounds that the D had knowingly set a trap on his property without notice to injure an individual who entered thereby. The defense of the property was inhumane and considered excessive force for the simple act of trespass. “no man can do indirectly that which he is forbidden to do directly”
iv. Notes TL
1) If you are sitting at the property and the individual crosses onto your property, if you see them as a real danger, you can shoot them, but if they were there to recover a lost peacock, then shooting them would be seen as unjust
2) The failure to give notice, shows that he intended to hurt someone, not just to protect his property.
It wasn’t used as a deterrent, but rather a booby trap

Question 2

Posner’s Bird v Holbrook, Economic Analysis

Answer 2

i. Holding
Spring guns may be the most cost effective means to deterring crime involving private property, however they don’t discriminate between innocent and criminal activity. People are more likely to secure their animals in the case that people have set spring guns.

Question 3

Katko v Britney

Answer 3

i. Facts
1) D owned an old boarded up house where he stored antiques. Someone kept breaking in to steal his stuff. To catch the criminal he set a spring gun in one of the rooms but did not post notice. The P entered the with the intent to steal and was hit in the legs with the shot from the gun.
ii. Issue
1) Is the D liable for P’s injuries even though the P entered the D’s house with the intent to commit a crime
iii. Holding
1) Jury awarded the P damages, reasonable force may be used to deter but not if it will inflict death or great injury
2) Owner prohibited from willfully or intentionally injuring a trespasser by taking life or inflicting great injury
The exception is if that trespasser was committing a felony of violence or one punishable by death.