A welcome mat negating the castle doctrine is absurd. No court would ever buy that.
Your castle doctrine likely applies to your front lawn. I'm not certain because I'm not familiar with your state law, but its probable.
Even if your castle doctrine only applied to your actual dwelling and not your lawn, where the criminal dies is not determinative. So long as you shoot him in your home (or wherever the castle doctrine allows), where the criminal's heart finally stops beating would be entirely irrelevant.
Premises liability varies somewhat state to state, but the prevailing law across the nation holds that trespassers in the given example (on the property to commit a crime) are owed no duty by the property owner, precluding any legal right to damages. If an insurance company chooses to settle, that's a different matter. Often times, insurance companies will offer what is called a "cost of defense" settlement.
In the given example, I find it unlikely the trespasser-plaintiff would survive a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment if he/she sued the homeowner. Since the homeowner owes no duty to trespasser-plaintiff, the trespasse-plaintiff would be unable to satisfy all the elements of a negligence claim (duty being #1).
Your castle doctrine likely applies to your front lawn. I'm not certain because I'm not familiar with your state law, but its probable.
Even if your castle doctrine only applied to your actual dwelling and not your lawn, where the criminal dies is not determinative. So long as you shoot him in your home (or wherever the castle doctrine allows), where the criminal's heart finally stops beating would be entirely irrelevant.
Premises liability varies somewhat state to state, but the prevailing law across the nation holds that trespassers in the given example (on the property to commit a crime) are owed no duty by the property owner, precluding any legal right to damages. If an insurance company chooses to settle, that's a different matter. Often times, insurance companies will offer what is called a "cost of defense" settlement.
In the given example, I find it unlikely the trespasser-plaintiff would survive a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment if he/she sued the homeowner. Since the homeowner owes no duty to trespasser-plaintiff, the trespasse-plaintiff would be unable to satisfy all the elements of a negligence claim (duty being #1).
Last edited:
