Presentation on theme: "A longtime favorite, Wolf v. Pig is an entertaining explanation of the products and editorial enhancements that make West the premier provider of legal."— Presentation transcript:
A longtime favorite, Wolf v. Pig is an entertaining explanation of the products and editorial enhancements that make West the premier provider of legal research materials.
A fascinating legal look at the story of the Three Little Pigs as only West’s unique case-law collection could tell it…with a synopsis, headnotes and Key Numbers. W himsical yet fascinating, Wolf v. Pig gives you a look at the real-life, timesaving advantages you get exclusively from the proven Topic and Key Number System ® found only on Westlaw ® and West’s CD-ROM and print publications. Wolf v. Pig
Contents Synopsis This humorous summary of what happened in the classic children’s tale, told as Wolf v. Pig, shows you the research advantages of West’s synopsis of the procedure, main facts and holding of a case …………………………….…………………..………….…... Synopsis Synopsis Headnotes and Key Numbers ® You’ll see how West’s exclusive headnotes describe every point of law discussed in Wolf v. Pig, each with its own unique Key Number to lead you to related cases………….……………….. Headnotes and Key Numbers Headnotes and Key Numbers Text of Opinion Judge Wise weighs the contentious events of the day in question and arrives at a fair and proper decision………………….….. Text of Opinion Text of Opinion
. Every West synopsis gives you the trial judge’s name that you can use to check his or her record on appeal, in general, or on a type of case or issue you’ll face when you try your case before that judge. Only the West attorney- editors take critical terms from an opinion and group them into a single paragraph. As a result, your search for terms in close proximity on Westlaw ® or a West CD-ROM will turn up relevant cases you might miss on other services. It’s another unique advantage of the Topic and Key Number System Wolf brought action against Pig for injuries sustained while attempting entry into Pig’s residence. Pig counterclaimed for trespass. The Trial Court, Wild County, Butcher.J., entered judgment on jury verdict in favor of Pig, and Wolf appealed. The Superior Court of Appeals, Wise, I.M., held that: (1) evidence that Wolf had recently destroyed homes of Pig’s brothers was admissible on issue of intent; (2) Wolf was trespasser, not invitee; (3) pot of boiling water in fireplace at bottom of chimney was not “mantrap” for Wolf attempting to enter home through chimney; (4) Pig was entitled to use force in defense of himself and his brothers; and (5) punitive damages were proper. Affirmed Go to text of opinion Go to text of opinion Synopsis
Headnotes and Key Numbers Always look for the Key Number in every opinion reported in West’s respected case- law collection. It identifies every point of law in a case by a unique, searchable number that easily leads you to other relevant cases. Use “your” Key Number as a search term alone or combine it with your word search to find all cases on point and build the strongest possible argument. Experienced researches know that “Key Searching ™ ” is the only way to be certain a pivotal case won’t be missed due to an overlooked search term. 1. EVIDENCE 129(5) Evidence that Wolf blew down Pig’s brothers’ homes shortly before attempting to blow down Pig’s house was relevant to issue of whether Wolf’s intent in knocking on Pig’s door while dressed as brush salesman was gluttonous or commercial, and whether Wolf was thus trespasser; therefore, this evidence was not excluded under “prior bad acts” rule. Rules of Evid. Rule 404(b). Go to text of opinion.
When a headnote contains two distinct points of law, such as the duty owed to a trespasser vs. an invitee, West attorney-editors assign two separate Key Numbers. So no matter how you arrive at the headnote, you quickly see where more cases on either point of law can be found. “Doubling” is just one more safety net you get exclusively with the Topic and Key Number System so you can be more confident you haven’t missed a crucial case. 2. NEGLIGENCE 32(2.3), 33(2) Wolf was “trespasser,” not “invitee,” when he entered Pig’s premises to eat him or his brothers, for purposes of Wolf’s premises liability claim against Pig arising from injuries Wolf sustained in pot of boiling water.
West attorney-editors add pertinent legal concepts and terms of art the judge may not have used that will help your word search find relevant cases. For instance, using “hidden peril” as your search term leads you to all cases defining this concept. 3. NEGLIGENCE 33(1) Premises owner only owes trespasser duty not to be confronted with hidden perils. 4. NEGLIGENCE 47 Possibility of extreme heat at bottom of chimney was not “hidden peril,” and kettle of boiling water in fireplace was not a “mantrap” and thus, premises owner had no duty to protect trespasser who descended chimney and was injured when he landed in kettle, from dangers kettle presented.
Here’s a helpful Topic and Key Number System “extra” you only get from West. We identify parties by terms that describe their legal status or relation to each other, not merely by their names or as “plaintiff” or “defendant”. So no matter what language the judge may have used, we give you “universal” terms – that other publishers can’t give you – to help you search with maximum confidence. 5. NEGLIGENCE 47 Landowner’s duty to protect trespassers from hidden perils does not extend to fireplaces or chimneys.
Only West has Topic categories that allow you to exclude irrelevant cases when your search term has both a common and legal meaning, such as “damages”. For example, focusing your word search under Topic 386, Trespass, and Key Number 46(3), Damages, gives you only trespass cases involving damages. Only the Topic and Key Number System allows you to screen out unwanted cases so effortlessly. 6. ASSAULT AND BATTERY 13, 14 Pig did not “assault” Wolf by placing boiling water on fire, knowing that Wolf was attempting entry through chimney; evidence showed that Wolf was entering with design to eat Pig and/or his brothers and thus, Pig was acting in defense of his life and/or that of his brothers, and was entitled to use deadly force. 7. TRESPASS 46(3) Evidence that Wolf was trespasser when he entered Pig’s home through chimney supported award of nominal damages; evidence indicated that Wolf’s purpose in entering house was to eat Pig and/or his brothers. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 162.
Only West attorney-editors go the extra mile to give you an easy-to-understand summary of the point of law that each Key Number represents. Headnotes speed your research and give you insights to new concepts you may not have considered. 8. DAMAGES 55 Damages for emotional distress are not recoverable in trespass action. 9. DAMAGES 91(1) Evidence that trespasser descended premises owner’s chimney with intent of eating owner and/or his brothers was adequate basis for punitive damages award. 10. DAMAGES 91(1) Fact that one has intentionally undertaken actions that reasonably place another in fear of being eaten is basis for award of punitive damages.
Text of Opinion When judges write opinions, they often refer to parties by their names (Wolf, Pig) or their status in the litigation (plaintiff, defendant). But only West uses universal terms describing the legal relationship of parties in the synopsis and headnotes of an opinion. It’s another Topic and Key Number System exclusive that helps you find important cases you might otherwise miss. Wise, I.M. Plaintiff Big Bad Wolf (Wolf) appeals from a judgment of the circuit court entered on a jury verdict which rejected his claim for personal injuries and which awarded nominal and punitive damage to defendant Little Pig III (Pig) on his counterclaim for trespass. We affirm. Viewing the evidence most favorably to Pig, a jury could have found the following: Synopsis
On the day in question, Wolf appeared at Pig’s newly constructed brick home, ostensibly as a brush salesman. Pig responded to his knock, opened the front door as far as the security chain would allow, took a sample brush offered by Wolf and, and smote him on the foot. The reason for this violence was that Pig’s two brothers had arrived shortly before, informing Pig that Wolf had destroyed their home and wanted to eat them. Wolf then attempted to destroy Pig’s home, but finding it to be sturdier than those of Pig’s brothers, attempted entry by way of the chimney. However, Wolf landed in a kettle of boiling water and suffered severe burns, for which he sought damages. Wolf’s complaint was based on the theories of premises liability and assault. Pig counterclaimed, alleging trespass.
The number for each headnote is referenced in the text of the opinion to quickly locate a detailed grasp of each point of law. Return to this headnote on slide 5, for example, and you’ll see what a help this West exclusive can be.on slide 5, [ 1] Before considering the parties’ substantive claims, we must resolve an evidentiary issue. At trial, evidence was admitted concerning the incidents involving Wolf and Pig’s brothers. Wolf asserts that this was evidence of prior bad acts which was inadmissible under Rule 404(b). Pig contends that it was admissible to show that Wolf’s intent when he knocked on Pig’s door was gluttonous, not commercial, and that Wolf was thus a trespasser. We agree with Pig. The evidence showed that in each case, Wolf knocked on the door, was denied admittance, threatened to “huff and puff” until he blew the house down, and proceeded to do so. The only difference was that he was unsuccessful in his attempt to blow away Pig’s house. Clearly, the three events were sufficiently similar to permit the admission of the evidence, providing that it was relevant to the same issue. We believe that it was admissible on the issue of Wolf’s intent. Wolf’s actions, as shown by this evidence, were inconsistent with those of an honest brush salesman.
[2.3] Wolf claims that Pig breached the duty owed to him as an invitee. However, if, as the jury apparently found, Wolf entered Pig’s premises for the purpose of eating him or his brothers, he would be a trespasser. As such, he was owed only a duty not be be confronted with hidden perils. Rustay v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 775 F.Supp. 161 (1991).  Wolf asserts that, even if he is considered a trespasser, the boiling water at the bottom of the chimney was a mantrap, much like a spring gun in a vacant cabin. Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (1971). Noting that at least one well-known personage annually enters home by way of chimneys, he claims that, like a spring gun, the boiling water had the potential to injure the innocent as well as the guilty.  Aside from the fact that the incident in question took place in the summer, we disagree that the landowner’s duty to trespasser extends to fireplaces or chimneys. As the jury believed, the possibility of extreme heat at the bottom of a chimney is not a hidden peril, and the kettle of boiling water was not a mantrap.
 Wolf next asserts that Pig assaulted him by placing the boiling water on the fire when he knew that Wolf was attempting entry through the chimney. It is sufficient to state that if, as the jury found, Wolf was entering with the design to eat Pig and/or his brothers, Pig was acting in defense of his life and/or that of his brothers, and thus entitled to use even deadly force. Hall v. Coplon, 355 S.E.2d 195 (1987).  Finally, Wolf challenges the award to Pig on his counterclaim for trespass. From what we have previously said, it is obvious that the jury could find that Wolf was a trespasser. That alone warrants an award of nominal damages. Kenney v. Koch, 737 P.2d 491 (1987); Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 162.
[8-10] As to the award of punitive damages, Pig testified that he was in fear of being eaten by Wolf. While damages for emotional distress are not recoverable as such in an action for trespass, Stoll v. Curl, 551 P.2d 1058 (1976), the fact that one has intentionally undertaken actions which reasonably place another in fear of being eaten is certainly a basis for an award of punitive damages. WMH, Inc. v. Thomas, 398 S.E.2d 196 (1990). Framer and Hunter, JJ., concur.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.