Katko v. Briney

(1971) 183 N.W.2d 657
Author: JeffD

 

Prior Proceedings

Plaintiff Katko filed suit against defendants Edward and Bertha Briney for damages resulting from injuries he suffered while trespassing on the Briney property.  Katko was injured when he triggered a spring gun that had been placed in the uninhabited house by Mr. Briney.  At trial, the jury found for Katko and awarded both actual and punitive damages; the defendants are appealing this judgment.

 

Current Disposition

The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the trial court jurys verdict and its award of damages.

 

Facts

Plaintiff Katko and a friend broke into the Brineys unoccupied farm house with the intention of stealing some old bottles and dated fruit jars, which they considered to be antiques.  Previous to this break in, the defendants farm house had, at various times, been vandalized, broken into and some household items had been stolen from it by person or persons unknown.  About five weeks prior to the break in by Katko and his companion, Mr. Briney had rigged a shotgun in one of the farm house bedrooms so that it would go off when the bedroom door was opened from the outside.  The shotgun was pointed in such a way so that when it was triggered the shot would likely strike an intruder in the legs.  On the night of the break in, Katko opened the bedroom door and was shot in the leg by the shotgun trap, suffering serious injuries for which he was hospitalized.  Briney eventually plead guilty to larceny in the nighttime of less than twenty dollars.  He then filed this lawsuit.      

 

Issue

Can an owner employ deadly force to protect personal property in an unoccupied dwelling from trespassers and thieves by the use of a spring gun capable of inflicting serious or mortal injuries?

 

Holding

No, deadly force cannot be used solely to protect land or other property unless there is a concurrent threat to the owners life or safety, which in itself, would justify the use of deadly force in self defense.

Rule 

It is well established principle of law that there is no privilege to use deadly force solely in defense of land or property unless there exists a threat to ones personal safety as well (Prosser on Torts, Third edition, pages 116-118).

 

Reasoning

In applying the above rule, the Iowa Supreme Court determined that the deadly force posed by Brineys shotgun trap was not warranted to protect unoccupied property.  Briney would have been justified in using deadly force if he had been in the house at the time of the burglary and if he feared his life was in danger.