In the case of Katko v. Briney (1971), defendant inflicted serious injury on plaintiff caused by a 20-gauge spring shotgun set by defendants bedroom. Defendants bedroom resided in an old farm house which had been uninhabited for several years. Plaintiff had broken and entered into the farm house to steal old antique bottles. The main issue in this case was weather an owner has the right to protect personal property in an “unoccupied boarded-up farm house against trespassers and thieves” by a “spring gun”, capable of inflicting serious injury or death. The trial court concluded the verdict that granted the plaintiff $20,000 and $10,000 punitive damages. The defendant appealed the judgment and entered a second trial. The question for civil liability was called to question in regards to the criminal, serious injury, or homicide caused by the spring gun used by the defendant. The plaintiff testified and admitted he had no right to break and enter into the home with the intent to steal. This was was interesting, as the amount of detail included from both the plaintiffs and defendants sides made for a credible argument. The plaintiff ultimately admitted to his wrongful doing and clarifying his guilt, though the principals of law state there is a “higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property.” The final decision concerning this case was determined to have no merit in the defendants objections and exceptions. Very conflicting subject matter.