If the law was up to you, would this be illegal? What about moral?
Let's imagine a hypothetical situation and let's hear what you think would be legal in the case and what would be moral. I'd like to know who you think is right and wrong in the situation, who is suffering a tort or a setback, if there a crime and if there a victim.
The Hypothetical
John is not the brightest guy and while going on a hike in the mountains he gets caught in a severe snowstorm. Despite not being the sharpest tool in the shed, he quickly realizes that his life is in danger and starts looking for help or shelter. After some time, cold and exhausted, he finds a cabin in the woods. He sees that there is nobody around and that the door is locked. He destroys the lock and breaks in. He takes some firewood from outside and starts the fireplace and takes out some food from the pantry. He eats in front of the fireplace, covers up with a blanket and falls asleep.
In the meantime the good old papa bear Stephen comes back to his estate on his trusty old snowmobile and quickly realizes there is someone inside. He storms in shotgun in hand and tells John to get off his property. John begs him to let him stay as the snowstorm outside is getting even worse and he's afraid he'll freeze to death outside. Stephen tells him he's trespassing and kicks him out. John spends the night in the snowstorm before he's finds a town and gets rescued but because of being out in the cold for so long, he's gotten frostbite and a few of his fingers and toes end up being amputated.
After John recovers, he sues Stephen for damages. Stephen reacts with a counter-suit for breaking and entering.
Time For Your Verdict
What do you think? Who is guilty and who is innocent in this case. If the law was up to you, what would the law be in this situation. And don't forget to think about additional unintended consequences of your laws?
What do you think the law in the US says on the matter? What about other countries (or your country if your country does not happen to be the US)?
Let me tell you about a few options I see and then I'll tell you what the US law about this situation is.
Option 1
Stephen's rights to his private property are unalienable and he has no responsibility for protecting John from the storm. John is guilty for breaking and entering and owes Stephen damages.
Option 2
Both are guilty. John is guilty for braking and entering, but Stephen is still guilty for forcing John into a life-threating situation.
Option 3
Stephen is the guilty party in this case because John did what he did to save his life. John might be asked to pay for the lock, the firewood and the food, but that's all while Stephen is guilty of battery as hi denied John shelter knowingly putting him into a life-threatening situation.
Option 4
As long as John didn't feel comfortable outside, Stephen should be forced by law to share everything he has with whoever wants it.
The US Law
Disclaimer: Don't cite me on this, I'm not even a US citizen.
In the US law there is a doctrine called "privilege of necessity" which allows people who are in a dangerous or potentially life-threatening situation, they do have the right to tresspass on other people's property and take shelter and do whatever's necessary for them to survive. Still, they would be responsible for any damages they might have caused, so in this case John does have to pay Stephen for what he's broken or used and might also have to pay something for disturbing the owner. But Stephen does not have the right to kick John out if it's reasonably clear that this is going to put John's life in danger. This means that according to the US law, Stephen's actions in this situation actually constitute a crime - battery. So the US law favors John in this situation and is basically Option 3.
So do you think this law makes sense?
If you could make the law
Which option do you think should be the law? Which option is moral in your opinion? Is there another option that you think is better? Let me know in the comments!
Option 3 is the correct choice here (at least if you're in the US).
Under the evidence presented, John would have committed multiple crimes: trespass to land (breaking and entering into Stephen's home without his consent), trespass to chattels (bringing the firewood inside, and [potentially] using the blanket, both without Stephen's permission), and conversion (burning the wood in the fireplace, and eating the food without Stephen's permission).
In this case, however, John believed with sufficient cause that his life was in danger. As the risk to John's life is evidently greater than the loss Stephen suffered by John's use of Stephen's property, a defense of necessity on John's behalf is appropriate. The court should order John to compensate Stephen for the cost of the lock, the cost of the door, the cost of the firewood, the cost of the food, and the cost of any other supplies John used while occupying Stephen's house, and hold John harmless for the crimes of trespass and conversion.
Stephen's situation is different: he came home to discover an individual unknown to him (John) had broken into Stephen's home, eaten some of Stephen's food, and used Stephen's firewood and blanket, all without Stephen's permission.
However, Stephen is armed with a shotgun, John is unarmed, John has made no hostile or aggressive overtures towards Stephen, the weather outside is clearly inhospitable to John, and John is likewise clearly unequipped for survival in such weather. The threat posed to Stephen by John is not greater than the threat posed to John by the weather if he is removed from the house.
The story only states that Stephen "kicked out" John. If this involved physical action, such as Stephen pushing John out the door, Stephen committed battery. Being armed with a shotgun, if Stephen threatened injury to John, he may also be guilty of assault. The doctrine of proximate cause for negligence also applies to Stephen, because he intentionally removed John from his home despite the inhospitable weather conditions outside and John's unfitness for remaining healthy or enduring them. John's loss of his limbs due to frostbite are a direct result of Stephen's actions, as if Stephen had allowed John to stay inside, he would not have sustained the injuries.
Option 3 covers this, and it is most logical conclusion under the law.
Thank you for the detailed analysis! I did mention in the post that the US law is basically close to option 3, but obviously I couldn't explain it as well as you did! But let's put existing law aside, if you were a lawmaker, what law would you suggest in this situation?
Applause for what I think is a great hypothetical post.
I did not know that the U.S. had such a law, but it doesn't surprise me, and in the end, I can see the compassion in it, which could have well come about due to the lack of it a time or two.
Mostly, I come down on the side of personal responsibility. If there's a chance that something is going to go wrong that you are ill-equipped for, or can't find a way to personally mitigate, then you wait until you are prepared to do it, or until the circumstances are more favorable.
If John is a habitual thrill seeker, or as you say, always going to be dumb and thus always going to be in situations he can't get out of, I think that should be factored in. If he suffers due to the consequences of his actions, well, maybe he needs to feel fortunate that he only lost fingers and toes. And maybe those lost digits act as a constant reminder not to do things he can't personally get himself out of.
Now, having said all that, I know if I were Stephen in this situation, there's little chance that I would send him back out into the blizzard unless I found out John was a psychopath or was personally endangering me somehow.
My compassion for someone in need would likely outweigh my sense of justice. I would absolutely expect him to pay for any damages, or work them off (unless there were valid reasons for his breaking and entering and destruction of property beyond, whoops, it's snowing hard), and make sure I gave him a piece of my mind, and try not to be overly harsh about it.
But I can't imagine putting someone back into a life threatening situation and never regretting it afterwards. Life's too short to live with regrets.
Excellent post.
I would dismiss both suits and order each to pay his own costs.
Though I consider Stephen's actions in refusing shelter to John were certainly immoral, I contend that he should be perfectly within his rights to do with his property as he pleases.
I consider each of us morally bound to, at the least, do no harm, but I do not believe that this morality should be enforcible by law.
I agree with this, "I do not believe that this morality should be enforcible by law". Very well put, @deirdyweirdy. It is also unlikely that Stephen was aware of breaking such an obscure law.
Also, how could he be sure that John wasn't a psycho and would , in fact, threaten his life later on. In that sense, Stephen did what the story says John did - he protected himself from potential danger. For comparison, when somebody breaks down on the side of the road, and I drive by being alone in my car, I cannot be expected to stop and help. The most anybody can expect from me is to call the cops/rescue service from the safety of my car. That's what I learnt years ago in driving school (Europe though).
In addition, how can Stephen be expected to judge the weather accurately. Maybe he thought it wasn't life-threatening or knew of a shelter (cave?) nearby that John could use. We don't know whether he gave John any advice.
You make a good point. Since each could be said to be guilty only of acting in the interests of self preservation, neither should have sued the other, and thus, both cases should be dismissed.
That certainly makes sense. I think in the US law as well as in others, there are concepts like "reasonable behavior" or "reasonable expectations". If Stephen was in danger from John, he had all rights in the world to kick him out under most jurisdictions out there. But than Stephen would be asked to demonstrate that it was reasonable for him to think he was in danger.
In the end, there are a lot of factors that simply couldn't be included in a hypothetical like this one that certainly factor in when it's a real world thing.
Generally speaking, I'd say laws certainly are supposed to have the function of protecting us against harm from others (or compensating us for it). I think the interesting question to look at here is who is causing what harm to the other and if so, whose rights, desires or needs should come first.
I think there are way too many laws already. With every law we loose our humanity a bit more, letting governments take control a little more each time. I think there should only be a few laws. Like: do no harm... But that one would most likely eliminate most of the governmemts around the world.
Instead of communicating through laws, we could also communicate as loving beings.
In your story there are two beings who were in danger. John for loosing life or limbs, Stephen for loosing property. I think life trumps property, but indeed compensation can be agreed on in the case of loosing property. I think that's quite obvious.
No mal intent can be determined in this case. John did not set out to intentionally rob Stephen.
So why are we looking at government and laws in this case instead of human compassion and human intelligence to come to a solution that prevents any damage to anyone? That's really my biggest question.
I personally feel that our culture has set each of us against the 'others'. We lost our sense of community and in that of our humanity. I think we need to recover that. Our own survival might depend on that one day.
Thank you for your detailed and insightful reply! :) I absolutely agree with your message in the last paragraph!
Thanks @rocking-dave. I read through the new (and older) replies again and was struck with the focus of some people on property rights. I hope one day soon people start to realize that laws protecting property were not made to protect us 'ordinary' people who own a little, but to protect the people who 'own' way more than they need. Police don't really care about petty theft. They do care about the wealthy people's 'property' often times gathered by abusing other people or downright theft. Might makes right...
We 'ordinary' people are remarkable able to figure out good ways between us without government. We can find ways to compensate for our petty 'theft' caused by circumstances we did not foresee, even if that means we were just stupid or ignorant.
Life trumps property, but it does not eliminate responsibility. We're still responsible for coming up with a solution that's agreeable. Compensate for real damages.
Stephen is clearly an asshole, but that is not punishable by law. The problem in the US is that you can sue pretty much anybody and that's crazy.
Anyway, I'd go with option 3. I think in France they have such a law under which you must provide assistance to people in danger.
That's interesting, so in France Stephen not only couldn't kick John out, he was obligated to provide assistance?
Like you said, let's look at the unintended consequences.
If 1: John would have seen the wilderness as uninhabited and planned his hike accordingly, instead of assuming he could use others' property as a safety net.
If 1: It would have been understood that John breaking in and staying uninvited was a crime regardless of the extent of his need. He and Stephen could then have opened negotiations for paid accommodation.
John would still have his fingers and Stephen would have an extra $500 for giving up his couch overnight.
Clear, unalienable, natural property rights give us the ability to transact for mutual benefit, instead of prompting bitter, costly disputes over who has a legal right to the property of another.
Thank you for your insightful reply! I guess that if they could reach an agreement about something like that in that case, John wouldn't have lost a finger.
I wonder, would your answer change if John's troubles weren't due to his own bad planning, but due to some unforeseeable natural disaster that just caught him out?
No, that gets real muddy real quick.
Breaking in is a declaration.
"I would be dead if you hadn't built this cabin." Or "I am indebted to you for my ongoing existence"
John should be thanking Stephen for that, since he survived a scenario in which he would have otherwise died.
The court should award Stephen another one of Johns fingers.
That might get him in the habit of negotiating.
It does, absolutely. I was thinking of the precedent they have in the US. In the case with one person, many people might say forcing Stephen to bear with John while there is danger is OK (I know you wouldn't). But what if John was with his family? But what if it's the whole town over? Now a judge has to decide what number is reasonable and what isn't. And that's now law...
I laughed so hard! XD
The way I intended the scenario he tried that with the pleading, but it didn't work.
I absolutely understand your point of view that the law can't and should not force Stephen to accept an unwanted guest on his property, regardless of the circumstance. But assuming that John was reasonable, polite and modest, would you say Stephen acted morally?
No, it's terribly immoral.
Well, thank you for sharing your position here. I absolutely understand where you're coming from on this one.
Appreciate the thought exercise.
Good chat, mate :)
Always a pleasure! :)
Option One.
Unsurprisingly, you lean more libertarian than your local laws, but that's to be expected, right? :) Thank you for stopping by and sharing your opinion!
Wow. This is the best post i have seen today. If i could make the law, option 3 would be most ideal to me. Laws, in my opinion, should be based on empathy. The "privilege of necessity" doctrine, is the right step in the right direction.
Extremely great post @rocking-dave . you just won for yourself a new follower.
Thank you, I'm glad you think so!
wow it is amazing post i like so i following and up vote thanks
and resteemd also