11

A man in New Orleans, USA, developed a method to prevent thieves from breaking into his car by rigging a flashbang to detonate if someone broke in. A flashbang is an explosive device that triggers a temporarily blinding flash of light and a loud noise. Such devices stun and disorient people who are nearby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQqb2k717Sg

Could this man be liable for injuries caused by the explosive device?

Trish
  • 39,097
  • 2
  • 79
  • 156
Al Lelopath
  • 887
  • 5
  • 15
  • 2
    See also https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/3970/can-i-booby-trap-my-property-against-police – BlueDogRanch Apr 06 '22 at 16:18
  • 1
    Not only liable for injury, but subject ot arrest fo rpossesion and use of an explosive device. – Tiger Guy Apr 06 '22 at 23:22
  • 1
    @TigerGuy: That would depend upon the size and power of the device in question. Some states allow novelty fireworks that could be stunning and disorienting if set off at short range. – supercat Apr 07 '22 at 05:30

1 Answers1

17

Yes. This sounds equivalent to the famous case of Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971). A shotgun trap was set up in an abandoned house owned by Edward and Bertha Briney. A thief broke in and was seriously injured. After the thief had served his sentance for the attempted theft he sued the homeowners and won $20,000 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.

User65535
  • 6,608
  • 5
  • 24
  • 52
  • 14
    And that was for injury to the thief himself. If innocent bystanders had been injured, as seems to be a serious risk with the flashbang device, they'd have an even stronger case. – Nate Eldredge Apr 06 '22 at 14:13
  • 3
    Is it possible that the law is different in some states? I.e. perhaps "castle law" makes booby trapping legal in some states? – JonathanReez Apr 06 '22 at 23:08
  • 5
    @JonathanReez: No! The castle doctrine does not protect property. – Joshua Apr 07 '22 at 03:41
  • 1
    @Joshua would it be different if the shotgun trap was only ever armed when the owner was also on the property? – Tristan Apr 07 '22 at 09:25
  • 2
    @Tristan The facts of the case would certainly be different if the owner was on the property, in that they could make the case that it was in self defense. The result of any court case will depend on the details. – User65535 Apr 07 '22 at 09:37
  • 2
    I do wonder if the less-than-lethal status of a flash-bang would affect this. Unlike a shotgun, it is quite unlikely to cause any permanent damage. – DBS Apr 07 '22 at 16:15
  • 1
    From knowing an audiologist and speaking to her about her craft, I'm sure there is permanent damage to your hearing, that you might not be aware of right away. I would bet there is also the possibility for long term eyesight issues. The human body's sensitive organs are not all that tough. – Mark Rogers Apr 07 '22 at 17:17
  • 1
    @DBS I do not see that would make a difference. I think the point is that you can use force to protect yourself, but not unattended property. The level of force is not relevant to that consideration. – User65535 Apr 07 '22 at 17:21
  • 3
    @User65535: Burglar alarm systems with loud sirens and flashing lights are not regarded as using "force" against would-be thieves, even though a thief who managed to get himself stuck right next to a siren might conceivably suffer hearing damage as a result. – supercat Apr 07 '22 at 18:48
  • 1
    @supercat Burglar Sues Nightclub Over Hearing Loss From Loud Burglar Alarm – User65535 Apr 07 '22 at 20:22
  • 2
    @MarkRogers In addition to that, a flashbang going off in a small enclosed space (inside a car) right next to you could damage a lot more than just your eyes and ears. It may be a small explosion, but it's still an explosion in close proximity to a squishy flesh-sack. (Just ask the bank robber who stuffed the cash along with the exploding paint cartridge down his pants...) – Darrel Hoffman Apr 07 '22 at 21:04
  • 2
    @User65535: If a noise is loud enough, or light bright enough, to cause a non-trivial level of harm, that would represent in inappropriate use of force, regardless of whether it was from an electric siren and lights, or a small pyrotechnic. On the flip side, however, if a pyrotechnic does not produce a level of noise and light that would cause non-trivial harm, I don't see that as materially different from a burglar alarm. – supercat Apr 07 '22 at 22:11