If a kid breaks into your house and gets bitten, can he sue you?

[s mack 88]

Thank God I live in Texas. If a kid broke into my house (or anybody actually) their lives are in my hands. Pretty cool man.

as it should be. Civilized society shouldn't penalize people for protecting what is theirs.

 

[Cicero**]

Very Hollywood looking, but 30 seconds with a big steel wrecking bar to sweep that shit off and a nice thick towel, anyone's climbing over that without any trouble.

I'm more of a 'razor wire on the interior ledge of the fence' kinda guy. Doesn't look fortified from the outside but anyone who tries to hop it is going to encounter a surprise and have a big decision to make. I have some relatives down south with a junkyard- that's how they go about it.

Of course the broken bottles on the wall are not impenetrable. That said, smashing down the glass with a big steel wrecking bar might wake people up. People with guns.

A real serious fence looks like what the Saudis built to keep out the Iraqis:

Or this prison fence:

Or this modern fortress:

http://ifitshipitshere.blogspot.com/2010/05/safe-house-in-poland-is-modern-fortress.html

 

[Bear Man]

Not if they're dead.

 

[Phreaxer]

Not in Arizona anymore. We just voted for and passed a law saying that a criminal could not sue their victims for anything that occurs to them while in the commission of a felony. You break into my house and 'assault' me and wind up getting shot, you're not going to be able to sue me for anything.

 

[fingercuffs]

I thought you were a millionaire? Why on earth do you continue to live in such a shit neighbourhood where you're constantly worrying about intruders?

 

[Jumpy]

If only more judges had common sense like this. Unfortunately I don't think tons of them do.

I just served as a juror on a murder case and our judge was awesome. Sounded like Casey Kasem and looked/acted like Martin Short. He was awesome.

We found the guy guilty: murder, felony murder armed robbery, felony murder agg assault, armed robbery, agg assault, possession of illegal fire arm during felony(murder), possession of firearm during felony(agg assault/armed robbery). Guilty all seven counts.

 

[fingercuffs]

I just served as a juror on a murder case and our judge was awesome. Sounded like Casey Kasem and looked/acted like Martin Short. He was awesome.

We found the guy guilty: murder, felony murder armed robbery, felony murder agg assault, armed robbery, agg assault, possession of illegal fire arm during felony(murder), possession of firearm during felony(agg assault/armed robbery). Guilty all seven counts.

What was his sentence?

 

[Phreaxer]

Hopefully death for those crimes, but probably life.

 

[tkotom]

someone got bitten in World's house.

 

[Higus]

Training a dog to attack is a horrible idea for both legal and practical reasons. Get a house alarm if you are worried about robbers.

 

[fingercuffs]

Training a dog to attack is a horrible idea for both legal and practical reasons. Get a house alarm if you are worried about robbers.

Don't, his head will pop clean off his shoulders.

 

[osudude]

Kid as in teenager who should know better than to break in or kid as in "how did he even get in?"

There's some pretty specific laws in some jurisdictions about dogs and the danger they pose to kids who don't know better. Even if your dog is on your property and behind a fence doesn't mean you can't be held liable if the kid runs up to the fence, puts his hand through and gets bitten (I find some sense in these laws). I could see a similar case being made for a kid who runs up to your door, finds it unlocked, and then gets bitten by the dog on the inside.

However, if you're talking about a "kid" (read: teen) who's actually breaking and entering and/or burglarizing, while you could get sued, you'd never be held liable.

 

[Robert L Evans]

Kid as in teenager who should know better than to break in or kid as in "how did he even get in?"


However, if you're talking about a "kid" (read: teen) who's actually breaking and entering and/or burglarizing, while you could get sued, you'd never be held liable.

I agree and disagree. Laws vary greatly from state to state and city to city. So even if I were a lawyer I wouldn't be able to address the issue. However I do know as a general rule, if things are set out such as bear traps, deadman traps, boards with nails etc. the owner is responsible if a person is injured whether they enter legally or not. I'm sure this would apply to dogs, and unfortunately the owner is the one put in the position of defense - not a good position to be in.

A quick story to highlight how outrageous laws about personal property can be: A close friend of mine was a Judge, he owned a restaurant/bar. A girl broke in to the second story storage, through a window, slipped on some stuff put on top of an old refrigerator and broke her leg. The judge after going through court, was found responsible for her doctors bills, pain and suffering on (now victims) part. Ruling against the judge was because he did not have the windows adequately secured enough to keep her out in the first place.

 

[osudude]

I agree and disagree. Laws vary greatly from state to state and city to city. So even if I were a lawyer I wouldn't be able to address the issue. However I do know as a general rule, if things are set out such as bear traps, deadman traps, boards with nails etc. the owner is responsible if a person is injured whether they enter legally or not. I'm sure this would apply to dogs, and unfortunately the owner is the one put in the position of defense - not a good position to be in.

A quick story to highlight how outrageous laws about personal property can be: A close friend of mine was a Judge, he owned a restaurant/bar. A girl broke in to the second story storage, through a window, slipped on some stuff put on top of an old refrigerator and broke her leg. The judge after going through court, was found responsible for her doctors bills, pain and suffering on (now victims) part. Ruling against the judge was because he did not have the windows adequately secured enough to keep her out in the first place.

Perhaps saying "never liable" was too far. I generally think these cases are the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Oeshon]

he shouldn't be able to, but the US is so litigious I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up owning your house

Wasn't there a story from the US where a guy broke in through a window, broke it and cut himself bad, then sued and won? Injured in the heat of the crime and then winning a lawsuit is just insane.

There was also one I remember where a kid jumped the fence into his neighbors backyard and drowned in the pool. Pretty sure the guy got jail time.

On the flip side there was that awesome one in Texas where the old dude shot two black dudes in the back with a shotgun while on the line to 911. He got off too.

 

[MC3521]

Wasn't there a story from the US where a guy broke in through a window, broke it and cut himself bad, then sued and won? Injured in the heat of the crime and then winning a lawsuit is just insane.

There was also one I remember where a kid jumped the fence into his neighbors backyard and drowned in the pool. Pretty sure the guy got jail time.

On the flip side there was that awesome one in Texas where the old dude shot two black dudes in the back with a shotgun while on the line to 911. He got off too.

I thought so too but I think it is just an urban myth or something. Crazy judgements like this get thrown out a lot too.

I know where I live this wouldn't fly.

 

[Cicero**]

Some of this comes down to PREMISES LIABILITY. According to wiki:

1)The defendant must possess the land or "premises".[2]

2) The plaintiff must be an invitee or, in certain cases, a licensee.[2][3] Traditionally, trespassers were not protected under premises liability law.[2][3] However, in 1968, the California Supreme Court issued a vastly influential opinion, entitled Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, which abolished the significance of legal distinctions such as invitee, licensee, or trespasser in determining whether one could hold the possessor of a premises liable for harm. This opinion led to changes in the law in many other states in the United States, and is viewed as a seminal opinion in the development of the law of premises liability.

3) There must be negligence or some other wrongful act.[3] In recent years, the law of premises liability has evolved to include cases where a person is injured on the premises of another by a third person's wrongful act, such as an assault. These cases are sometimes referred to as "third party premises liability" cases and they represent a highly complex and dynamic area of tort law. They pose especially complex legal issues of duty and causation because the injured party is seeking to hold a possessor or owner of property directly or vicariously liable when the immediate injury-producing act was, arguably, not caused by the possessor or owner.




_________________

Under point 2), in some states it does not matter if the person is an invitee, licensee or trespasser for a negligent defendant to be held liable.

 

[guilineseguy]

Train your dog to kill so there is no one to sue you.

I was actually told by a state trooper, if someone breaks in your house, and you have to shoot them. Shoot to kill. Because then they can try to sue you in civil court, and you end up getting fucked. But there is a good change they would never prosecute you for the shooting because it was self defense.

What ever happened to the good old days of "If they break into your house, you can do whatever you want"? Now its

"Your honor I just wanted to break in his home, and steal everything that I could pawn off. All I really wanted was some crack money"

"Ok, the court decides in your favor, he owes you 1 million dollars"

 

[Cicero**]

I was actually told by a state trooper, if someone breaks in your house, and you have to shoot them. Shoot to kill. Because then they can try to sue you in civil court, and you end up getting fucked. But there is a good change they would never prosecute you for the shooting because it was self defense.

What ever happened to the good old days of "If they break into your house, you can do whatever you want"? Now its

"Your honor I just wanted to break in his home, and steal everything that I could pawn off. All I really wanted was some crack money"

"Ok, the court decides in your favor, he owes you 1 million dollars"

In some countries the castle doctrine goes out the window.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in England, the resident/home owner must back down, even to the point of leaving the house, rather than resort to deadly force to protect property. (Of course if this is unreasonable--if the homeowner or family is threatened--then force is justified.)


The rationale is that even if the perp is a crack head, his life is more valuable than your x-box.

 

[guilineseguy]

In some countries the castle doctrine goes out the window.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in England, the resident/home owner must back down, even to the point of leaving the house, rather than resort to deadly force to protect property. (Of course if this is unreasonable--if the homeowner or family is threatened--then force is justified.)


The rationale is that even if the perp is a crack head, his life is more valuable than your x-box.

Seriously? Thats not only unreasonable, but it is retarded.