Landmarks: the Spring Shotgun Case, and What it Tells Us About Security Robots

• Jurisdiction: Iowa,United States
• Publication year: 2019
• Citation: Vol. 2 No. 1

Steven A. Meyerowitz^*

This Landmarks column explores the implications for today of court decisions from what many people might consider (accurately or not) the pre-robotics and artificial intelligence era. Here, our Editor-in-Chief, Steven A. Meyerowitz, examines an Iowa Supreme Court case from 1971, Katko v. Briney, involving whether an owner could protect personal property in an unoccupied boarded-up farmhouse against trespassers and thieves by setting up a spring gun capable of inflicting serious injury, or even death. Security robots, anyone?

Robots already are present in our lives in ways that seemed like mere science fiction not that long ago.

Consider the security robot.¹

Just a few months ago, for example, Turing and Segway Robotics introduced what they characterized as a "powerful, affordable security robot." Their security robot offers "autonomous patrolling," "smart object detection," and "autonomous response via IoT." It provides "instant alerts" and acts as a "crime deterrent," with the additional benefit of providing an important service: "real-time evidence collection."

One demonstration video shows a hooded, sunglass-wearing man looking into windows in front of a home or building, perhaps in an attempt to determine whether the structure is occupied, when two security robots roll up and he runs away.

The video then shows a security drone flying and following the man as he continues to flee.²

Certainly, there are many, many legal issues associated with security robots. This Landmarks column explores one of them: Can a property owner use security robots to protect personal property against trespassers and thieves by inflicting serious injury, or death, on them? To examine that question, this column focuses on

[Page 45]

the 1971 decision by the Iowa Supreme Court in Katko v. Briney,³which involved a civil suit seeking damages for injuries caused by a spring gun to a person who broke into an unoccupied boarded-up farmhouse.

The Setting

In 1957, Bertha L. Briney inherited her parents' farm land in Mahaska and Monroe Counties, Iowa. Included in the property was an 80-acre tract in southwest Mahaska County where her grandparents and parents had lived in a farmhouse; no one subsequently occupied the house.

Mrs. Briney's husband, Edward, attempted to care for the land. However, he kept no farm machinery there and the outbuildings became dilapidated.

For about 10 years, from 1957 to 1967, there occurred a series of trespassing and housebreaking events with loss of some household items, the breaking of windows, and, as the Brineys put it, "messing up of the property in general."

Through the years, the Brineys boarded up the windows and doors of the farmhouse in an attempt to stop the intrusions. They posted "no trespass" signs on the land several years before 1967, including one that was 35 feet from the farmhouse.

Then, on June 11, 1967, the Brineys set "a shotgun trap" in the north bedroom of the farmhouse. After Mr. Briney cleaned and oiled his 20-gauge shotgun, the power of which he knew well, the Brineys took it to the old house, where they secured it to an iron bed with the barrel pointed at the bedroom door. The shotgun was rigged with wire from the doorknob to the gun's trigger so that it would fire when the door was opened.

Mr. Briney first pointed the gun so an intruder would be hit in the stomach but, at Ms. Briney's suggestion, it was lowered to hit the intruder's legs. Mr. Briney later admitted that he did so "because I was mad and tired of being tormented" but, he said, he "did not intend to injure anyone." He did not explain why he used a loaded shell and why he set it to hit a person already in the house.

The Brineys nailed tin over the bedroom window. The spring gun could not be seen from the outside. The Brineys did not post any warning of the shotgun's presence in the farmhouse's bedroom.

[Page 46]

The Shooting

Marvin Katko lived with his wife and worked regularly as a gasoline station attendant in Eddyville, Iowa, seven miles from the Brineys' old farmhouse. He had observed the building for several years while hunting in the area and considered it to be abandoned. He knew it had long been uninhabited.

In 1967, the area around the house was covered with high weeds. Prior to July 16, 1967, Katko and his companion, Marvin McDonough, had been to the property and found several old bottles and fruit jars that they took and added to their collection of antiques.

At about 9:30 p.m. on July 16, 1967, Katko and McDonough made a second trip to the Brineys' property. They entered the old farmhouse by removing a board from a porch window, which was without glass. While McDonough was looking around the kitchen area, Katko went to another part of the house.

As Katko started to open the north bedroom door, the shotgun went off, striking him in the right leg above his ankle. Much of his leg, including part of the tibia, was blown away.

Only by McDonough's assistance was Katko able to get out of the house. After crawling some distance, he was put in his vehicle and rushed to a doctor and then to a hospital. He remained in the hospital for 40 days.

Some weeks after Katko was released from the hospital he returned to work on crutches. He had to keep his injured leg in a cast for approximately a year and he had to wear a special brace for another year. Katko's leg had a permanent deformity, a loss of tissue, and ended up being shorter than it was before it was shot.

Katko incurred $710 in medical expenses, $2,056.85 for hospital services, $61.80 for orthopedic services, and $750 in lost earnings.

The Trial

Katko sued the Brineys for damages.

At the Brineys' request, Katko's action was tried to a jury consisting of residents of the community where the Brineys' property was located.

At trial, Katko testified that he knew he had no right to break into and enter the Brineys' farmhouse to steal bottles and fruit jars.

[Page 47]

He also testified that he had entered a plea of guilty to the crime of larceny in the nighttime of property of less than $20 value from a private building. He stated that he had been fined $50 and costs and paroled during good behavior from a 60-day jail sentence.

Other than minor traffic charges, this was Katko's first brush with the law.

The main thrust of the Brineys' defense in the trial court was that the law permitted the use of a spring gun in a dwelling or warehouse for the purpose of preventing the unlawful entry of a burglar or thief.

They repeated this contention in their exceptions to the trial court's instructions 2, 5, and 6.

In the statement of issues, the trial court stated that Katko and his companion had committed a felony when they broke into and entered the Brineys' farmhouse. In instruction 2, the trial court referred to the early case history of the use of spring guns and stated that, under the law, their use was prohibited except to...