Fred owns a farm in Miner County in South Dakota. Sam and Joe were painting Fred

Question

Fred owns a farm in Miner County in South Dakota. Sam and Joe were painting Fred's barn. They took a break from painting and went for a walk in the Fred's field. Sam was charged by a bull and injured. After Sam recovered from his injury, Sam and Joe went road hunting in Miner County, and lawfully shot a pheasant. The pheasant landed on Fred's property. The property was fenced with signs posted "NO TRESPASSING". Sam and Joe went onto Fred's property to get the pheasant. Fred caught them on his property and has charged them with trespassing.

Sam, who is 20-year old, entered onto Fred’s property without permission to swim in a creek. Sam dove headfirst off an embankment into the "creek", and broke his neck. He sues Fred for injuries sustained.

R1-1) Assume Fred gave Sam and Joe permission to walk in the field during their break. What is the classification of Sam and Joe and what is the duty owed by Fred while Sam and Joe were on their break, given they had permission to walk in the field.

R1-2) Would Fred be liable to Sam for his injuries from the bull?

R1-3) Assume a pheasant flew up on Fred’s property and Sam and Joe shot it as it flew up. Is this a lawful shooting? Would Fred be successful charging them with trespass under these circumstances?

R1-4) Assume Sam was 10 years old, rather than 20. Would Fred have liability for Sam’s broken neck?

Explanation / Answer

Answer

R1-1 Fred’s is the owner of his farm and Sam and Joe are the painter of Fred’s. They paint in Fred’s barn. Sam and Joe took break from their work and they come to the Fred’s farm after their break. Fred’s give them permission to walk in the field

R1-2 Fred’s is the owner of farm and he give permission to Sam and Joe to enter and visit his farm but when Sam and Joe enter in the farm of Fred’s Sam injured from the bull. In this condition Fred’s does not do any crime it is just a coincident because Sam come t Fred’s farm and get injured by the bull so Fred’s will not be liable for the injuries of Sam

R1-3 Yes Fred can do successful charging on them because Sam and Joe were in Fred’s property and this property is fenced with the sign post ‘’NO TRESPASSING’’. Here Sam and Joe shot to the pheasant that were flying on the Fred’s property so here Freds can do successful charging on both of them because it is against lawful shooting.

R1-4 If we assume that Sam was 10 years old instead of 20 year then also Fred is not guilty because Fred’s give only permission to them for visiting to his farm. Other incident like bull attack and neck break are just a coincident and Fred’s can’t do anything in that cases and it is not a pre plan of Fred’s so here also Fred’s will not be liable for the broken neck of Sam

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse F
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.