Question

SOS!! BUSINESS LAW!!

1) D sets up a trap where he has a gun pointing at a door such that it will go off if someone attempts to open the door. D then leaves his home. P enters the home without D’s permission or knowledge, and is seriously injured by the trap. Does P have a cause of action against D? What is the cause of action?

2) Large piles of gravel accumulate on A’s mining property which is unfenced. Neighboring children frequently play on these piles, although A has posted a “Danger: No Trespassing” sign.   A is aware of this. One of these children age 7, is injured while playing on the slag pile. Is A liable for B’s injuries?

Answer 1

Yes, P can have a cause of action against D because in this case, the homeowner  D sets up a deadly trap at home, without even letting any trespasser cautioned against it. P enters the D's property without his consent and so D does not have any right for the protection of P but P as a homeowner, cannot willfully use any dangerous thing, which could prove fatal to somebody, to protect his property. D should have put a board of warning regarding the deadly trap in the house and that could have warned P against the trap in the house. D has no right to set a deadly trap in the house without warning to protect his house and can willfully cause harm to a trespasser. But D can use dangerous harmful things to protect him and his family from the trespassers.

Yes, A is liable for B's injuries as he left his inning property unfenced. Only putting a “Danger: No Trespassing” sign is not enough to prevent the children that too of 7 years to forbid from trespassing in the property. A 7-year child is not supposed to know about the meaning of danger or trespassing. A should have taken proper care of the mining property and fenced it properly and put the board to avoid trespassing. Only putting up aboard will not prevent A from being liable for the injury of B. Anyway, the rule for trespassing of children is desperate. There are certain exceptions as the children are trialed according to their age. Moreover, here A is also liable in this case as A does know already that the children used to trespass his mining property and should have taken the accurate precaution to avoid the trespassing, by fencing the property before the accident could have occurred.