Re: Brain Trauma Injury

More | Report Post

... continued from last message.

1. Adverse Possession or Prescriptive Easement?
2. Duties of Landowner to Known Trespasser
3. Intentional Tort - Battery

4. Crimes of Farmer.

This is a real neat question because it is a real property AND
torts AND criminal law crossover. Would be unusual for the Bar (so
let's figure it as a Baby Bar question, so the the adverse
possession and prescriptive easement would not be required
discussion).

A. Crimes of Farmer if P does not die.

Jurisdictions vary as to whether they have a crime of Mayhem (under
Common Law, required loss of and eye or a limb, but modernly the
disfigurement requirement can be more broadly satisfied -- North
Carolina has different degrees of mayhem based on maliciousness and
the extent of injuries), or just something like aggravated battery,
battery, etc. I beleive all jurisdictions have a crime of criminal
assault, which is either (1) an attempted battery or (2) the
placing of the victim in apprehension of an immediate battery. In
some, "endangerment" (usually a misdemeanor) is the crime of
recklessly endangering the safety of others.

Here, even if P was a trespasser, because he was a known trespasser
and Farmer engaged in affirmative activity which at the very least
endangered P's safety, Farmer would be criminally liable for
endangerment at the veryh least. Most likely he would be charged
with the felony of aggravated battery (and possibly also with
attempt to commit a battery if attempt did not merge with battery
in that jurisdiction), and might plead down to endangerment.

B. Crimes of Farmer if P dies.

Here, Farmer would be criminally liable for a homicide crime, in
addition to Battery (which might merge with homicide).

A charge of first degree murder would require proving that Farmer
intended to kill P (here there is no felony murder charge
applicable). Intent to kill murder requires specific intent,
rather than general intent, and because there is no evidence
showint that Farmer actually intended anyone's death as a
consequence of his actions, therefore first degree murder does not
apply.

A charge of second degree murder can be based on intent to commit
severe bodily harm or depraved indifference to the likelihood that
someone would die. Here, only general intent is required.

Murder based on intent to commit severe bodily harm would be the
more challenging, as State would have to prove not only that Farmer
intentionally put the crates there (i.e., someone other than Farmer
put them there), but also that Farmer knew (or a reasonable person
in Farmer's position would know) that some snowmobiler (not
necessarily P himself, but anyone) would be seriously injured.
Given the high speed nature of the sport, such a charge could be
proven, but Farmer would prevail if he could prove a reasonable
doubt that he knew, or a reasonable person would know, that his
action would cause serious injury as opposed to minor injury.

Murder based on depraved indifference would be easier to prove,
because even if Farmer did now know someone would be seriously
injured, any reasonable person would know that placing crates on a
trail where high-speed snowmobilers are travelling, and have reason
to believe from their past experience is safe to travel on
unimpeded, without warning signs of any kind, would create a high
risk of serious bodily injury to at least one snowmobiler.

Therefore, if P dies of his injury, Farmer is criminally liable for
second degree murder.

Continued on next message ...