Katko v. Briney

Supreme Court of Iowa · 1971 · Torts

Tortsdefense of propertyspring gundeadly forcedefense of propertydeadly forcespring gunmechanical devices

Facts

Defendants owned an old farmhouse that had been uninhabited for several years and had experienced repeated trespassing and housebreaking. To stop intrusions, defendants set a loaded 20-gauge shotgun in a bedroom, wired to fire when the bedroom door was opened, concealed it from outside view, and posted no warning of its presence. Plaintiff and a companion broke into the house at night intending to steal old bottles and fruit jars, and when plaintiff opened the bedroom door, the gun discharged and severely injured his leg. Defendants lived several miles away and were not present at the farmhouse when the incident occurred.

Issue

May an owner protect personal property in an unoccupied, boarded-up farmhouse against trespassers and thieves by using a spring gun capable of inflicting death or serious injury? More specifically, was the trial court correct in instructing the jury that such force is not justified unless the trespasser is committing a felony of violence, a felony punishable by death, or is endangering human life?

Rule

An owner may use reasonable force to protect property, but may not use force intended or likely to take human life or inflict great bodily injury merely to prevent trespass or theft. A landowner cannot do by mechanical device what he could not lawfully do in person; thus spring guns and similar devices are prohibited unless the circumstances would justify such deadly force in person, such as where human life is endangered or a felony of violence is being committed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In rural Kansas, Owen Mercer owns a vacant hunting cabin that has been broken into several times. Frustrated, he rigs a loaded rifle behind an interior door so that it will fire at leg level when the door is opened; a nighttime trespasser enters to steal fishing gear and is severely wounded.

In the trespasser’s tort action, which is the strongest argument for liability?

Explanation. The governing rule is that an owner may use reasonable force to protect property, but may not use force intended or likely to take life or inflict great bodily injury merely to prevent trespass or theft. A landowner cannot accomplish by mechanical device what he could not lawfully do in person. Because the structure was unoccupied and the threat was only to property, the device was not privileged even though the intruder was stealing and even though the gun was aimed at the legs.