Katko v. Briney
Facts: Df secured to an iron bed a shotgun, with the barrel pointed downward. It was rigged with wire from the doorknob to the gun’s trigger so it would fire when the door opened. The spring gun could not be seen from outside. No warning of its presence was posted. PL had broken and entered the house to find and steal old bottles and dated fruit jars which they considered antiques. PL opened the door the shotgun went off striking him in the right leg above the ankle bone. Much of his leg was blown away. Issue: Whether an owner may protect personal property, an unoccupied dwelling, against trespassers and thieves by the use of a spring gun? Rule: The only time the setting of a spring gun or like dangerous devise is allowed is when the trespasser was committing a violent felony or a felony punishable by death, or when the trespasser was endangering human life. Ct. Rationale: The value of human life and limb outweighs the interest of a possessor of land in excluding from it those whom he is not wiling to admit thereto that a possessor of land has no privilege to use force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury against another whom the possessor sees about to enter his premises or meddle with his chattel, unless the intrusion threatens death or serious bodily injury. Therefor the use of a mechanical devise capable of death or serious injury to protect property at the expense of life or limb is no privilege. PL A: The df is liable for injury caused by a devise that causes serious bodily injury simply for trespass of chattel. Def A: The law permits use of a spring gun in a dwelling or warehouse for the purpose of preventing the unlawful entry of a burglar or thief.
Hodgeden v. Hubbard
Facts: The plaintiff bought a stove on credit and started taking it away. The defendants found out that the plaintiff had bad credit and went to take back the stove. They took it back by force and, in the course of doing so, the plaintiff pulled a knife on them. The plaintiff sued for assault and battery and conversion of the stove. The trial court found for the plaintiff for $1. The defendants appealed. Issue: Do property owners have the privilege of taking back their property by force when it is taken from them fraudulently?
Rule: Property owners have the right to recover chattel if it can be done “without unnecessary violence to the person, or without breach of the peace”. Furthermore, “there is no privilege on the part of the wrongdoer to resist”. 1[1] Analysis: The court focuses on the fact that the plaintiff drew a knife, at which point he became the aggressor. The plaintiff should not have resisted the defendants’ repossessing of the ill-gotten goods. If the plaintiff hadn’t resisted, there would have been no force necessary to recapture the chattel. Therefore, the defendants’ contact was privileged.
Bonkowski v. Arlan’s Department Store
Facts: Mrs. Bonkowski and her husband were shopping at Arlan’s store in Saginaw. After making several purchases they left around 10 p.m. While walking across the parking lot a security guard stopped them claiming someone reported Mrs. Bonkowski had stolen some items within. The PL emptied her purse into her husband’s hands while the guard watched. She produced receipts for the items in her possession. Pl suffered numerous psychological impairments as a result. Issue: Whether the privilege of reasonable belief justifying detention may extend to the one who has left the premises but is in the immediate vicinity of authorities? Can person be held for false imprisonment where a victim voluntarily submits? Holding: Yes, if officer believed the PL had unlawfully taken goods. Procedure: Jury returned a verdict for false arrest ($34,750). Reversed and remanded with instruction to jury. Rule: A merchant possesses privilege to detain for reasonable investigation a person whom he reasonably believes to have taken a chattel unlawfully. Ct. Rationale: The privilege should extend here b/c it is entirely reasonable for a merchant to detain a person for a reasonable investigation. The merchant may not be able to form the reasonable belief before the person leaves the premises, therefore on occasion the merchant may stop people after they have left the building.