Brineys vs.Katko Case

639 Words3 Pages
Brineys VS.Katko Case In the Briney’s Vs Katko Case there were many stated known facts. The Briney’s were farmers. They kept things stored inside of a house that was on their property. The house was neither populated nor occupied and was boarded up. The Briney’s also posted the aging house with no trespassing signs. Their house was broken into multiple times and some property was stolen. After being broken into several times, the Briney’s installed a shotgun designed to shoot the next person in the legs whenever they try to break in again. Katko broke into the house and was shot by the shotgun in the right leg. The leg was damaged. His hospital bills and lost wages amounted to be about four thousand dollars. Katko sued the Briney’s for the damages. He also sued for the pain and suffering and was awarded twenty thousand dollars in actual damages and ten thousand dollars for punitive damages. The Briney family appealed. There are multiple controversial and debatable issues amongst the Briney Vs Katko Case. First, you have to decide which tort was actually broken. Also, One of the problems in the case is the actual house itself. We do not know if the house is actually owned by the Brineys or not. It could just be in old abandoned house on their property. Another issue is the shotgun. Does it make a difference if the shotgun was installed rather than a genuine person shooting it? Also, the fact that the gun was shot into Katko’s leg and it did not kill him plays a major role. The two biggest issues in the Brineys Vs Katko case is the money awarded to Katko. It is extremely debatable about the amount of money awarded and if it is excessive or not. The other major issue is whether the Briney’s used reasonable force to protect their property or if their actions were unnecessary. Last but not least, the issue to decide whether to appeal or overturn the decision. In
Open Document