Intentional Torts
1. Kingsley Lear is an English professor.
Upset because a student, Hamlet, was
eating a sandwich during class, Lear
hurled a hardbound copy of
Shakespeare’s Collected Plays at
Hamlet. The book missed Hamlet, who
was so intent on devouring his sandwich
that he did not realize the book had been
thrown. The book instead struck Othello,
who was deep in thought and did not see
the airborne book before it struck him.
Othello was not physically harmed, but
was outraged at what had transpired.
When class ended, Lear noticed that as
usual, Romeo and Juliet were locked in
a steamy embrace. An irritated Lear
waited until all students except Romeo
and Juliet had left the second-floor
classroom. He then locked the room’s
only door, leaving Romeo and Juliet
inside. The room had two open windows,
which were seen by Romeo and Juliet.
They remained in the room for one hour,
after which time a custodian noticed
they were there and let them out. On
these facts, what torts has Lear
committed?
a.
b.
c.
d.
Assault as to Hamlet and assault and
battery as to Othello
Assault as to Hamlet, battery as to
Othello, and false imprisonment as
Romeo and Juliet
Battery as to Othello and false
imprisonment as to Romeo and Juliet.
Assault as to Hamlet , as to Othello,
and as to Romeo and Juliet
Katko v. Briney
Facts
The Brineys owned an uninhabited
farmhouse. For about ten years, there
were a series of trespasses on the
property by people who vandalized the
premises. To stop the unlawful intrusions,
the Brineys boarded up the windows and
posted “no trespass” signs outside. Still,
the incidents continued. The Brineys
responded with more drastic measures.
The attached a 20-gauge shotgun to an
iron bed in the farmhouse bedroom,
pointing the barrel at the bedroom door. It
was wired so that when anyone broke
into the farmhouse and turned the
doorknob of the bedroom, the shotgun
would go off. The gun could not be seen
from the outside.
Katko knew of the premises. He had
invaded it on a prior occasion and had
stolen antique bottles and fruit jars. On
a second trip to the Briney property,
Katko and a companion entered the
house through a window. When Katko
opened the bedroom door, the shotgun
went off and a part of his right leg was
blown away.
Katko was hospitalized for 40 days, his
leg was in a cast for about a year; and
he wore a special brace for another
year. Additionally, Karto suffered a
permanent shortening of the leg.
Katko sued the Brineys, seeking
damages for willful and wanton injuries
inflicted on him.
If you were a judge, how could you
decide the case?
Legal issue:
Whether an owner may protect personal
property in an unoccupied, boarded-up
farm house against trespassers and
thieves by a spring gun capable of
inflicting death or serious injury
Decision: No. judgment affirmed.
Reasoning:
(1)An owner of premises is prohibited
from willful or intentionally injuring a
trespasser by means of force that either
takes life or inflicts great bodily injury;
(2) Therefore a person owning a premise
is prohibited from setting out “spring
gun” and like dangerous devices which
will likely take life or inflict great bodily
injury, for the purpose of harming
trespassers.
(3) The fact that the trespasser may be
acting in violation of the law does not
change the rule.
(4) The only time when such conduct of
setting a “spring gun” or like dangerous
devices is justified would be when the
trespasser was committing a felony of
voilence or a felony punishable by death
or where the trespasser was endangering
human life by his act.
Bonskowski v. Arlan’s Department
Store
Facts :
false arrest & verdict

P ------------------------------- D
(customer)


(Department store)
the appeal
the jury verdict of the trial court
the plaintiff’s claims
the defendant’s motions
Legal issue:
Whether the concept of privilege can be
applied in this case
Decision: reversed and remand for new
trial.
Reasoning:
1. Clarify the legal principle governing
this case:
(1) what privilege a merchant enjoys
(2)under what circumstances he enjoys
such privilege
(3)why it is necessary to grand
merchant such privilege
(The appeal court stresses the concept
of privilege in false arrest case involving
shoplifting, whereas the trial court and
the jury made no consideration to this
defense.)
2. Extend this privilege to the special
circumstances of this case----the
detention of one who has left the
premises but in their immediate vicinity
3. Remand the case to the trial court for a
new trial with instruction----it will be the
duty of the jury to decide (1)
whether…and (2) whether…
?