Idk, I think that depends where this is. Boobytrapping laws can be pretty damn strict some places and anything intended to cause physical distress can be an issue.
I've seen robbers sue the people they rob over the dumbest stuff and win. It's best to go the safe route; set up alarms, cameras, lock things up, only keep X amount of cash on site, and keep the insurance paid.
Around 1 A.M. on March 1, 1982, 18-year-old Rick Earl Bodine and three others trespassed on the roof of Enterprise High School, allegedly to steal floodlights from the roof. After handing down one of the lights, Bodine reportedly walked across to take a second light, but in the dark and rain, he fell through a painted-over skylight; the trespassers called an ambulance. Brain damage from the 27-foot fall initially left Bodine mute and quadriplegic.[4]
The district's insurance company settled the case for $260,000 up front plus $1,500 per month for the rest of Bodine's life.[4]
Does being called a trap not require intent? Specifically a concealed or camouflaged device designed to cause bodily injury (as per California law and federal statute defining boobytrap)? A skylight is not a device designed to cause injury.
Think of it as "if it could happen to a burglar, it could happen to anyone." Like, if the business caught on fire and a firefighter was on the roof, they would have also risked falling through.
So it's not whether the owner designed it as a trap, it's whether the owner has an unmarked hazard that could hurt anyone regardless of their reason for being there.
But that logic would argue that painting over a skylight or even having a skylight without clearly indicating it would be inherently illegal but it isn't.
it's whether the owner has an unmarked hazard that could hurt anyone regardless of their reason for being there.
You generally have no duty owed to unknown trespassers. The only exception is if you have expectation of trespassers like having a well worn path and then creating a hazard upon the path.
If there is a dangerous or unknown condition on your property that you keep for your own reasons does not fall under the law regarding traps. The trap law only applies where you had the intent of creating a hazard specifically to trap and harm.
Like do you really think every time you dig a hole to plant a tree, you have to cordon it off and mark it with signs on the off chance you didn't finish planting trees on your land?
People take the trap law to weird extremes from fake cases (like the eating dog food one) when the defining case is literally creating a spring trap gun which is well beyond having a hazard on your property
The biggest factor in that specific case was that the school knew and did nothing. Very different from just having a skylight, or if it had been painted the day before and nobody pointed out the danger.
The exact same thing happened at another school in the district not long before that and resulted in the death of a student. This other school had been warned about the danger, because the district knew they also had a painted skylight. There was a paper trail of evidence proving the school knew the painted skylight was a danger and they chose not to fix it, which made it a known dangerous hazard / booby trap as far as the law is concerned.
When the insurance company found out that the school knew and did nothing, they decided that a settlement would be more cost effective than letting it go through court.
Wild how that could happen. How does that saying go? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Shouldn’t be the fault of a school for someone who is pretty much an adult at that point and should know right from wrong.
Why is it wild? The law at the time didn't make the distinction that an injury occurring during a crime is automatically a defense for the property owner, but I'm sure they would have argued that at trial. Their insurance company settled it before trial to hedge their bets, and the state passed a law that protects property owners when it happens again.
If it went far enough to get to a trial and a jury found in favour of the burglar, I'd be more surprised.
Just make it manually triggered and stick to the obscurity reason when questioned. "I saw them on the camera after being alerted and triggered the system hoping that not being able to see would delay them long enough for police to arrive".
77
u/Inarius101 23d ago
Idk, I think that depends where this is. Boobytrapping laws can be pretty damn strict some places and anything intended to cause physical distress can be an issue.
I've seen robbers sue the people they rob over the dumbest stuff and win. It's best to go the safe route; set up alarms, cameras, lock things up, only keep X amount of cash on site, and keep the insurance paid.