As he started to open the north bedroom door the shotgun went off striking him in the right leg above the ankle bone. They repeated this contention in their exceptions to the trial court's instructions 2, 5 and 6. These cases are derived from class notes and laws change over time. Briney was a battery tort case that occurred in Iowa in 1971. In the statement of issues the trial court stated plaintiff and his companion committed a felony when they broke and entered defendants' house. In instruction 2 the court referred to the early case history of the use of spring guns and stated under the law their use was prohibited except to prevent the commission of felonies of violence and where human life is in danger.
They took no exception to the trial court's statement of the issues or to other instructions. Katko regretfully opened the trapdoor, injuring himself and needed to be hospitalized. Iowa cases are in accord. The trial court was manifestly right in sustaining the motion and in dismissing a transparent and wholly improper attempt to reargue and relitigate those matters settled in the earlier appeal. The unoccupied house had been the subject to a number of intrusions on many occasions over a ten-year period.
The trial court was asked in effect to reverse this court in the earlier case. However the court does not address the issue of a man protecting his family, they state that clearly. All the information on this site is constantly updated and edited. When they entered the bedroom, the shotgun fired and blew off much of plaintiff's leg, leaving a permanent deformity. If the owner and wife had the reasonable fear of violence then they would have been justified. They decided to go back a second time. The facts in this appeal are of course identical to those outlined in some detail in Katko v.
It may be that the evidence would support a finding of an intent to injure the intruder, but obviously that important issue was never adequately or clearly submitted to the jury. The scant authority available from all jurisdictions seems unanimous a trial court is without power to enjoin the enforcement of its judgment after an affirmance on appeal. The gun could not be seen from the outside and there were no warning signs that the gun would fire if the door was opened. Facts: Defendant boarded up and put a no trespass sign on an unoccupied house. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the Iowa. They entered the old house by removing a board from a porch window which was without glass. The question is whether a judgment may be subject to collateral attack in district court after having been affirmed on appeal.
The fact that the trespasser may be acting in violation of the law does not change the rule. Appeal and Error § 1857, page 294. Briney Court: Full Name: Marvin Katko v. Defendants through the years boarded up the windows and doors in an attempt to stop the intrusions. Please keep in mind that this site makes no warranties as to the accuracy of the cases listed here or the current status of law.
Appeal and Error § 1857, page 294. Briney, 1971 , was a famous case decided by the , in which a homeowner Edward Briney was held liable for for injuries caused to a trespasser Marvin Katko who set off a set as a in an abandoned house on the homeowner's property. Briney would have been justified in defending himself with the shotgun if he had been home during the intrusion. Then in the bedroom, defendant wired up a shotgun to fire at the legs of anyone entering the bedroom. By inflicting deadly force on another individual, this case become more of human rights issue than a potential trespassing violation.
Consider ending your addiction to social media. Upon entering that room, the husband was shot in the leg and lost his leg, resulting in permanent deformity. Katko sued Briney after his release from hospital. As he entered a trap of two sticks of dynamite buried under the doorway by defendant owner was set off and plaintiff seriously injured. Briney would have been justified in defending himself with the shotgun if he had been home during the intrusion. Briney, Iowa 1971 , the unsuccessful defendants brought this equity action in district court. The trial court determined it could not.
Briney and Katko then joined together in a lawsuit against the neighbor to create a on the profit, but the case was settled before trial in an amount sufficient to close out the judgment against Briney. Little did they know that the owners of the house had been aware that of a series of trespassing and housebreaking events over the years with loss of some household items so they boarded up the house and made a 20-gauge spring shotgun trap in one of the bedrooms. Thus we have this appeal by defendants. This is citation of good law for a bad purpose. A month later, on July 16, 1967, Katko entered the farmhouse with the intent of stealing some old bottles and dated fruit jars that Katko considered antiques. Katko P got his leg nearly blown off when he opened the door. He had observed it for several years while hunting in the area and considered it as being abandoned.
After the filing of our opinion in Katko v. Winneshiek Mutual Insurance Association v. Under the record presented here, that was a fact question. In 1967 the area around the house was covered with high weeds. It has no application to cases where the judgment challenged has been affirmed on appeal.
Back, 148 Iowa 223, 125 N. After the appeal was denied, they made a arrangement with Briney, but eventually one sold his share to his son for a profit. All Justices concur except Larson, J. Such is the rule even though the injured party is a trespasser and is in violation of the law himself. The trial court was asked in effect to reverse this court in the earlier case.