A longtime favorite, Wolf v. Pig is an
entertaining explanation of the products and
editorial enhancements that make West the
premier provider of legal research materials.
Wolf v. Pig
A fascinating legal look at the story of the Three Little
Pigs as only West’s unique case-law collection could tell
it…with a synopsis, headnotes and Key Numbers.
Whimsical yet fascinating, Wolf v. Pig gives you a look at
the real-life, timesaving advantages you get exclusively
from the proven Topic and Key Number System® found
only on Westlaw® and West’s CD-ROM and print
publications.
• Synopsis
Contents
This humorous summary of what happened in the classic children’s
tale, told as Wolf v. Pig, shows you the research advantages of West’s
synopsis of the procedure, main facts and holding of a case
…………………………….…………………..………….…...Synopsis
• Headnotes and Key Numbers®
You’ll see how West’s exclusive headnotes describe every point of law
discussed in Wolf v. Pig, each with its own unique Key Number to lead
you to related cases………….……………….. Headnotes and Key Numbers
• Text of Opinion
Judge Wise weighs the contentious events of the day in question and
arrives at a fair and proper decision………………….…..Text of Opinion
.
Every West synopsis gives
you the trial judge’s name
that you can use to check
his or her record on
appeal, in general, or on
a type of case or issue
you’ll face when you try
your case before that
judge.
Only the West attorneyeditors take critical terms
from an opinion and
group them into a single
paragraph.
As a result, your search
for terms in close
proximity on Westlaw®
or a West CD-ROM will
turn up relevant cases
you might miss on other
services. It’s another
unique advantage of the
Topic and Key Number
System
Synopsis
Wolf brought action against Pig for injuries
sustained while attempting entry into Pig’s
residence. Pig counterclaimed for trespass. The
Trial Court, Wild County, Butcher.J., entered
judgment on jury verdict in favor of Pig, and
Wolf appealed.
The Superior Court of Appeals, Wise, I.M., held
that: (1) evidence that Wolf had recently
destroyed homes of Pig’s brothers was
admissible on issue of intent; (2) Wolf was
trespasser, not invitee; (3) pot of boiling water
in fireplace at bottom of chimney was not
“mantrap” for Wolf attempting to enter home
through chimney; (4) Pig was entitled to use
force in defense of himself and his brothers;
and (5) punitive damages were proper.
Affirmed
Go to text of opinion
Headnotes and Key Numbers
Always look for the
Key Number in every
opinion reported in
West’s respected caselaw collection. It
identifies every point of
law in a case by a unique,
searchable number that
easily leads you to other
relevant cases.
Use “your” Key Number
as a search term alone or
combine it with your
word search to find all
cases on point and build
the strongest possible
argument.
Experienced researches
know that “Key
Searching™” is the only
way to be certain a
pivotal case won’t be
missed due to an
overlooked search term.
1. EVIDENCE
129(5)
Evidence that Wolf blew down Pig’s
brothers’ homes shortly before attempting to
blow down Pig’s house was relevant to issue
of whether Wolf’s intent in knocking on
Pig’s door while dressed as brush salesman
was gluttonous or commercial, and whether
Wolf was thus trespasser; therefore, this
evidence was not excluded under “prior bad
acts” rule.
Rules of Evid.
Rule 404(b).
Go to text of opinion.
When a headnote contains
two distinct points of law,
such as the duty owed to a
trespasser vs. an invitee,
West attorney-editors
assign two separate Key
Numbers. So no matter
how you arrive at the
headnote, you quickly see
where more cases on either
point of law can be found.
“Doubling” is just one
more safety net you get
exclusively with the Topic
and Key Number System
so you can be more
confident you haven’t
missed a crucial case.
2. NEGLIGENCE
32(2.3), 33(2)
Wolf was “trespasser,” not “invitee,” when he
entered Pig’s premises to eat him or his
brothers, for purposes of Wolf’s premises
liability claim against Pig arising from injuries
Wolf sustained in pot of boiling water.
West attorney-editors add
pertinent legal concepts and
terms of art the judge may
not have used that will help
your word search find
relevant cases.
For instance, using “hidden
peril” as your search term
leads you to all cases
defining this concept.
3. NEGLIGENCE
33(1)
Premises owner only owes trespasser duty
not to be confronted with hidden perils.
4. NEGLIGENCE
47
Possibility of extreme heat at bottom of
chimney was not “hidden peril,” and kettle of
boiling water in fireplace was not a
“mantrap” and thus, premises owner had no
duty to protect trespasser who descended
chimney and was injured when he landed in
kettle, from dangers kettle presented.
Here’s a helpful Topic
and Key Number
System “extra” you
only get from West.
We identify parties by
terms that describe
their legal status or
relation to each other,
not merely by their
names or as
“plaintiff” or
“defendant”.
So no matter what
language the judge
may have used, we
give you “universal”
terms – that other
publishers can’t give
you – to help you
search with
maximum confidence.
5. NEGLIGENCE
47
Landowner’s duty to protect trespassers from
hidden perils does not extend to fireplaces or
chimneys.
Only West has Topic
categories that allow you to
exclude irrelevant cases when
your search term has both a
common and legal meaning,
such as “damages”.
For example, focusing your
word search under Topic 386,
Trespass, and Key Number
46(3), Damages, gives you
only trespass cases involving
damages.
Only the Topic and Key
Number System allows you to
screen out unwanted cases so
effortlessly.
6. ASSAULT AND BATTERY
13, 14
Pig did not “assault” Wolf by placing boiling
water on fire, knowing that Wolf was attempting
entry through chimney; evidence showed that
Wolf was entering with design to eat Pig and/or
his brothers and thus, Pig was acting in defense of
his life and/or that of his brothers, and was entitled
to use deadly force.
7. TRESPASS
46(3)
Evidence that Wolf was trespasser when he
entered Pig’s home through chimney supported
award of nominal damages; evidence indicated
that Wolf’s purpose in entering house was to eat
Pig and/or his brothers. Restatement (Second) of
Torts § 162.
Only West attorney-editors
go the extra mile to give you
an easy-to-understand
summary of the point of law
that each Key Number
represents.
8. DAMAGES
Headnotes speed your
research and give you
insights to new concepts
you may not have
considered.
9. DAMAGES
55
Damages for emotional distress are not
recoverable in trespass action.
91(1)
Evidence that trespasser descended premises
owner’s chimney with intent of eating owner
and/or his brothers was adequate basis for
punitive damages award.
10. DAMAGES
91(1)
Fact that one has intentionally undertaken actions
that reasonably place another in fear of being
eaten is basis for award of punitive damages.
Text of Opinion
When judges write opinions,
they often refer to parties
by their names (Wolf, Pig)
or their status in the
litigation (plaintiff,
defendant). But only West
uses universal terms
describing the legal
relationship of parties in
the synopsis and headnotes
of an opinion.
Wise, I.M.
It’s another Topic and Key
Number System exclusive
that helps you find
important cases you might
otherwise miss.
Viewing the evidence most favorably to Pig, a jury
could have found the following:
Plaintiff Big Bad Wolf (Wolf) appeals from a
judgment of the circuit court entered on a jury
verdict which rejected his claim for personal injuries
and which awarded nominal and punitive damage to
defendant Little Pig III (Pig) on his counterclaim for
trespass. We affirm.
Synopsis
On the day in question, Wolf appeared at Pig’s newly
constructed brick home, ostensibly as a brush salesman.
Pig responded to his knock, opened the front door as far as
the security chain would allow, took a sample brush
offered by Wolf and, and smote him on the foot. The reason for this
violence was that Pig’s two brothers had arrived shortly before,
informing Pig that Wolf had destroyed their home and wanted to eat
them.
Wolf then attempted to destroy Pig’s home, but finding it to be
sturdier than those of Pig’s brothers, attempted entry by way
of the chimney. However, Wolf landed in a kettle of boiling
water and suffered severe burns, for which he sought damages.
Wolf’s complaint was based on the theories of premises liability and
assault. Pig counterclaimed, alleging trespass.
[1] Before considering the parties’ substantive claims, we
The number for each
headnote is
referenced in the
text of the opinion to
quickly locate a
detailed grasp of
each point of law.
Return to this
headnote on slide 5,
for example, and
you’ll see what a
help this West
exclusive can be.
must resolve an evidentiary issue. At trial, evidence was
admitted concerning the incidents involving Wolf and Pig’s
brothers. Wolf asserts that this was evidence of prior bad acts
which was inadmissible under Rule 404(b). Pig contends that
it was admissible to show that Wolf’s intent when he
knocked on Pig’s door was gluttonous, not commercial, and
that Wolf was thus a trespasser. We agree with Pig.
The evidence showed that in each case, Wolf knocked on the
door, was denied admittance, threatened to “huff and puff”
until he blew the house down, and proceeded to do so. The
only difference was that he was unsuccessful in his attempt
to blow away Pig’s house. Clearly, the three events were
sufficiently similar to permit the
admission of the evidence, providing
that it was relevant to the same issue.
We believe that it was admissible on the issue of Wolf’s
intent. Wolf’s actions, as shown by this evidence, were
inconsistent with those of an honest brush salesman.
[2.3] Wolf claims that Pig breached the duty owed to him as an invitee. However,
if, as the jury apparently found, Wolf entered Pig’s premises for the purpose of
eating him or his brothers, he would be a trespasser. As such, he was owed only a
duty not be be confronted with hidden perils. Rustay v. Consolidated Rail Corp.,
775 F.Supp. 161 (1991).
[4] Wolf asserts that, even if he is considered a trespasser,
the boiling water at the bottom of the chimney was a mantrap,
much like a spring gun in a vacant cabin. Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657
(1971). Noting that at least one well-known personage annually enters home by
way of chimneys, he claims that, like a spring gun, the boiling water had the
potential to injure the innocent as well as the guilty.
[5] Aside from the fact that the incident in question took place in the summer, we
disagree
that the landowner’s duty to trespasser extends to
fireplaces or
chimneys. As the jury believed, the possibility of
extreme heat
at the bottom of a chimney is not a hidden peril,
and the kettle
of boiling water was not a mantrap.
[6] Wolf next asserts that Pig assaulted him by placing the boiling water on
the fire when he knew that Wolf was attempting entry through the
chimney. It is sufficient to state that if, as the jury found, Wolf was
entering with the design to eat Pig and/or his brothers, Pig was acting in
defense of his life and/or that of his brothers, and thus entitled to use even
deadly force. Hall v. Coplon, 355 S.E.2d 195 (1987).
[7] Finally, Wolf challenges the award to Pig on his counterclaim for
trespass. From what we have previously said, it is obvious that the jury
could find that Wolf was a trespasser. That alone warrants an award of
nominal damages. Kenney v. Koch, 737 P.2d 491 (1987); Restatement
(Second) of Torts, § 162.
[8-10] As to the award of punitive damages, Pig testified that he was in
fear of being eaten by Wolf. While damages for emotional distress are not
recoverable as such in an action for trespass, Stoll v. Curl, 551 P.2d 1058
(1976), the fact that one has intentionally undertaken actions which
reasonably place another in fear of being eaten is certainly a basis for an
award of punitive damages. WMH, Inc. v. Thomas, 398 S.E.2d 196 (1990).
Framer and Hunter, JJ., concur.