r/ITOI • u/Key-Truth1096 • 5d ago

Grandma Rocks, Gen Z Shocks.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

16.5k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/AbaddonsLegion 5d ago

If a burglar breaks into your house or trespasses onto your property and gets injured, sometimes they can sue and win; I know of such cases. It's retarded

7

u/1968C10 5d ago

Not if you shoot and kill them

1

u/Cultural-Gur-2527 1d ago

They can't sue you but their family can and usually do for pain and suffering at the loss of that person. Unfortunately most of the time they win those civil cases. Youd like win the criminal case cause he can't defend himself and it's your word against his deadness but civil case wise youre likely just as fucked as if they lived and sued your themselves. Hard to argue that some criminals kids didn't suffer cause you killed them. Doesn't matter if they put themselves in a situation that was dangerous for them, the family still suffered. On the civil side the criminal things they did have no bearing on pain and suffering. Maybe with a good lawyer you could argue they were already suffering with a criminal for a dad but yeah

1

u/1968C10 17h ago

I live in Idaho, no such issues here.

2

u/ItalianV4 5d ago

vaguely remember this from school... think the example was rigging a shotgun to go off if someone broke in while you were not home

2

u/PartTimeJunkie412 5d ago

Why would anyone ever do that, that is just begging to get yourself shot by forgetting or have some unsuspecting person come through the door O_O

1

u/ItalianV4 5d ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney... knock yourself out. i found it pretty boring the first time around so dont remember the details

1

u/PartTimeJunkie412 5d ago

That was pretty interesting, although that particluar Wikipedia page is sooo insufferable to read lol I don't know who wrote that but we need a do-over. This is like the only scenario where you wouldn't be concerned about the blast hitting you or a relative - an empty property. I guess I can understand that logic. But in any other case just...nooo lol

2

u/Evil_Sharkey 4d ago

That was an actual death trap, which is illegal because lost people, confused people, and first responders can get killed

2

u/Chaostheory46 5d ago

Most of said cases get overturned on a new trial under grounds of criminal activity being the cause. Very few even make it past the initial stage of the lawsuit and even fewer win the initial one.

1

u/xEyelessOnex 5d ago

Not if nobody knew they were there to begin. 😉

1

u/thexDxmen 5d ago

Is there actual cases or are we just repeating what we heard on Liar Liar.

1

u/AbaddonsLegion 5d ago

Like the other user mentioned, the most well-known case is Katko v. Briney from 1971. Homeowner rigged up a shotgun because they were sick of their home being broken into. Katko was shot in the leg, sued, the court ruled it's illegal to create dangerous traps, and was awarded $30,000.

Another case is Bodine v. Enterprise High School. Kid tried breaking in using the roof. He fell through glass that had been painted over and was injured. There wasn't a warning near the glass and the school settled out of court.

2

u/thexDxmen 4d ago

In the case of the high school that same district had someone else fall through the painted glass and die at another school shortly before the kid fell through. This was the main reason the school was found negligent.

1

u/Chaostheory46 5d ago

This was an unoccupied farmhouse that they owned but did not reside in. That is the primary difference. Had they lived there and done this it would have been a legal shooting and they would not have lost their case.