• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Windshield Broke on our property

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

goneriding

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? OK

My family and I live on 40 acres. Since we moved here from CA, we have had to run off several shady individuals (previous owners were involved with meth) and across the way is a community that is known for producing meth. We put up a gate, no trespassing signs, etc. My 15yo daughter had a friend over, unfortunately his parents are involved with meth (mom just got out of prison and father is very deep into the drugs). He is a great kid, very respectful and most importantly - hates drugs. I informed her friend that he would need to tell whomever is coming to pick him up to please call first or I would take him home. So this guy just shows up, gets out of his car and just stands there waiting for this boy to come out of the house. My husband was standing approximately 30 feet away cleaning fish and asked the guy who he was. The guy jumped back in his car, so my husband threw his filet knife at his windshield and broke it. My husband stated that he WILL NOT deal with druggies driving up here especially if they do not display the simple respect of introducing themself to the owner. I have learned that in this area, you don't drive up anyones driveway without calling in advance and/or if you are lost. Well, this guy looked awful (really sucked up) - but that is just my observation. Apparently, he was driving a rental car and informed my daughters friend that it cost $500 to replace the windshield. I informed her friend that this person should call and speak to me and that it is not his (or my daughters) problem to resolve. Well, this guy phoned me today and stated that he wants me to pay the bill for the windshield and wanted to meet me in town to pay for the damage. I informed him that I would have to submit any documentation he has to my insurance company and that they (or I) would contact him with the outcome. Boy howdy, he immediately stated that he would have to call me back after he spoke with his girlfriend (apparently she is the one that paid the rental car bill). I have not heard back from him yet (it has been about an hour). He was on private property and I believe that I am within my rights (not sure though) - although throwing the knife was a bit drastic, but, what is done - is done. What are your thoughts on this and how would you have handled this type of situation? Any advice - negative and possitive, are appreciated.

Thanks
 


Ozark_Sophist

Senior Member
Your husband is very fortunate he has not yet been arrested and tossed into the tank with the meth users. Assault with a deadly weapon is a serious offence, in addition to criminal damage to property (whether this is a felony depends on the threshold of the state in which you live). The man's minor child was a visitor to your property so he had a legal reason to be there to pick him up. Your husband will responsible for the damages to the vehicle as I don't believe your insurance will cover an intential, criminal act.
 

altTab

Junior Member
Your insurance will not cover it. I highly suggest you apologize profusely for your husband's actions and quickly pay the man whatever he asks. If the man wanted to eventually force you to pay the damages, his first step would be to file a police report, so delaying payment only encourages him to do so. If a police report is filed, it is very possible he could be charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and misdemeanor Malicious Defacing Property. A conviction of the latter would later result in you being forced to pay the damages, while a conviction of the former could result in up to 10 years of prison. Not to mention the trial could quickly cost you tens of thousands of dollars.

The use of force can be justified when used to prevent "...any trespass or other unlawful interference with real or personal property in such person's lawful possession; provided the force or violence used is not more than sufficient to prevent such offense." Your husbands actions were not justified because:
1. The man was there legally.
2. Throwing a knife could be considered excessive in almost all likely scenarios.
3. The man was LEAVING when he was attacked.

My husband asked the guy who he was. The guy jumped back in his car, so my husband threw his filet knife at his windshield and broke it.
You are leaving a lot out, so I can only speculate as to the rest of the details. I'm going to guess your husband didn't say only, "who are you?" politely with a grin on his face. :rolleyes: From the running in fear and the knife throwing, I'm going to guess your husband lost his temper, scared the man away just like the others, and threw the knife at him in anger. This begs the question of how many times he has similarly attacked alleged trespassers. More importantly, since he seems to think his actions were acceptable, when will he do it again? You should strongly urge him to take anger management classes.

My husband stated that he WILL NOT deal with druggies
Well luckily for your husband, if charged and convicted as a violent offender, he would most likely be housed with fewer people guilty of possession alone. It's unfortunate the state is OK. In some other states, convicts that committed the same crime are forced to register as violent offenders in a public database. Maybe that would scare away future trespassers.
 
Last edited:

moburkes

Senior Member
Nope, homeowner's insurance covers ACCIDENTS, but since your husband INTENTIONALLY threw the knife, and it wasn't in self-defense, HE is responsible for the repair costs. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.
 

Eekamouse

Senior Member
Your husband was NOT within his rights to chuck a knife at a stranger's vehicle simply because the person drove onto your property and "looked like a druggie". You nor your husband are in the least bit qualified to make such judgement calls on your fellow man (who knows what people say about you two based upon your own appearances:eek: ) but even if you were, breaking windshields is at best a moronic response to an ignorant personal snap judgement. Your husband needs anger management classes. He broke the windshield, he will have to pay for it. Perhaps he should ask his sister to loan him the money to pay for his childish temper fit. Sheesh!!!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 

justalayman

Senior Member
The use of force can be justified when used to prevent "...any trespass or other unlawful interference with real or personal property in such person's lawful possession; provided the force or violence used is not more than sufficient to prevent such offense." Your husbands actions were not justified because:
1. The man was there legally.
2. Throwing a knife could be considered excessive in almost all likely scenarios.
3. The man was LEAVING when he was attacked.

QUOTE]

actually you read a lot into the post.


it also seems Ok has enacted a castle doctrine law. Without further and exact info, it is impossible to determine if the actions of the OP were legally allowed under such a law. Depending exactly what took place, there could be justification to the actions by the landowner. Not saying it was justified, merely it could be depending on exact details.

the tresspasser was not there legally. The homeowner did not invite him there therefore, he was a tresspasser and as such, not there legally.

OP did not state tresspasser was leaving. Merely entered vehicle. Simply could have been withdrawing into vehicle to avoid further contact with land owner while waiting for the child to emerge from house.
 

Kane

Member
Your husband threw a knife at a dude for not telling him who he was?

Pay the $500, and be glad it wasn't any worse than it was. And hope goober doesn't go to the police about it.

Tell your husband he doesn't get to throw knives at people, even if they are drug addicts.
 

Ozark_Sophist

Senior Member
the tresspasser was not there legally. The homeowner did not invite him there therefore, he was a tresspasser and as such, not there legally.

The man's minor child was on the premises. You think it is appropriate for a legal stranger to put conditions on when and where a parent can contact a child? If my child went to visit a friend and the friends parents placed those conditions, I certainly would not permit my child to visit because it seems suspect.
 

Kane

Member
It really doesn't matter whether Dad was trespassing. You don't get to throw knives at people for being on your property. This isn't the frikken dark ages, and owning 15 acres in OK doesn't make you a feudal overlord.

And by the way, he wasn't trespassing if he was driving his car up a frikken driveway.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
It really doesn't matter whether Dad was trespassing. You don't get to throw knives at people for being on your property. This isn't the frikken dark ages, and owning 15 acres in OK doesn't make you a feudal overlord.

And by the way, he wasn't trespassing if he was driving his car up a frikken driveway.
to enter another's property without invite (by the owner or authorized person,( which the child guest was not) is trespassing. He was neither a licensee nor an invitee.

So, yes, he was technically (frikken) trespassing.

Do you believe anyody has a right to come onto your property without invite?

Now, I have not read the so called "make my day" laws or "castle doctrine" laws in place in Ok but many of that type of law would allow such action with a minimal perception of threat by the homeowner. If the trespasser failed to ID themselves and merely retreated to the protection of their car, I can see where they may have come into play.

from ozark-sophist:
The man's minor child was on the premises. You think it is appropriate for a legal stranger to put conditions on when and where a parent can contact a child? If my child went to visit a friend and the friends parents placed those conditions, I certainly would not permit my child to visit because it seems suspect.
I don't disagree BUT we were never told the driver ever identified himself. It does not limit the control the landowner has of his property. Did the landowner know who the man was? From the post, I would presume not.

Even if he had, he was still a trespasser and had the option of calling the police to retrieve his child. Remember where the child was directed to either direct the father to call first or the OP would transport the child. This was apparently not done. So, this man was not expected and failed to identify himself. Not a welcome person at my house either.

as I stated previously, without more info, it is impossible to determine if the owner had the rights to do what he did and placement of the liability for the damages caused by those actions.
 

Kane

Member
to enter another's property without invite (by the owner or authorized person,( which the child guest was not) is trespassing. He was neither a licensee nor an invitee.

So, yes, he was technically (frikken) trespassing.

Do you believe anyody has a right to come onto your property without invite?
Does this right to throw knives you speak of apply to UPS workers and trick-or-treaters? Or to the lady next door who comes by to see if you want her extra squash?

Or just to dads who come to pick up their kids?

Now, I have not read the so called "make my day" laws or "castle doctrine" laws in place in Ok but many of that type of law would allow such action with a minimal perception of threat by the homeowner. If the trespasser failed to ID themselves and merely retreated to the protection of their car, I can see where they may have come into play.
There is no law anywhere that allows you to use deadly force against someone simply for driving up your driveway.

There are laws that allow you (under some circumstances) to use deadly force against someone who throws a knife at you.



I don't disagree BUT we were never told the driver ever identified himself. It does not limit the control the landowner has of his property. Did the landowner know who the man was? From the post, I would presume not.

Even if he had, he was still a trespasser and had the option of calling the police to retrieve his child. Remember where the child was directed to either direct the father to call first or the OP would transport the child. This was apparently not done. So, this man was not expected and failed to identify himself. Not a welcome person at my house either.
I would never, under any circumstances, allow my child to stay at the house of a knife-wielding maniac. And if I went to pick up my kid, and somebody threw a knife at me, he'd be fortunate if all I did was call the cops on him.

as I stated previously, without more info, it is impossible to determine if the owner had the rights to do what he did and placement of the liability for the damages caused by those actions.
Based on the info in the post, the knife-thrower committed a crime, possibly a felony, and he's fortunate the victim of that crime didn't take the law into his own hands.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Does this right to throw knives you speak of apply to UPS workers and trick-or-treaters? Or to the lady next door who comes by to see if you want her extra squash?
are you this ignorant? The UPS guy would be an invitee (more than likey) and the kids licensee's (as long as they were welcome. If neither is welcome, they are trespassers as well.

as to the neighbor, same thing.

Now to the knife. As I stated SEVERAL TIMES, without all the info, it is impossible to make the call. Ok laws allow protection of your property. Go read the laws and then tell me I am wrong.

Or just to dads who come to pick up their kids?
if they are trespassers, failed to ID themselves, and are percieved as a threat to the landowner, force can be used, regardless if it is the parent or not (which obvioulsy could not be discerned due to the lack of identifying themselves)



There is no law anywhere that allows you to use deadly force against someone simply for driving up your driveway.
Don't bet on it. If the owner percieves the trespasser as a threat, the castle doctrine laws being passed around the country are allowing some extreme actions on the landowners part.

There are laws that allow you (under some circumstances) to use deadly force against someone who throws a knife at you.
and your point is?





I would never, under any circumstances, allow my child to stay at the house of a knife-wielding maniac. And if I went to pick up my kid, and somebody threw a knife at me, he'd be fortunate if all I did was call the cops on him.
good. sounds like you have at least some parenting skills. About calling the cops, AGAIN, if the trespasser failed to identify himself and merely sat in car for some unkown reason, he could be considered a threat to some. He then would have to expain his actions to the police as well. Sounds like a stand off since there was no bodily harm on either side.



Based on the info in the post, the knife-thrower committed a crime, possibly a felony, and he's fortunate the victim of that crime didn't take the law into his own hands.
Without reading the applicable laws AND having more information, it is impossible to ascertain this conclusion.


So, go read the applicable Ok laws, and then when and if we get all the info needed, then make the call. Until then, you are simply being reactionary to what you percieve as the correct and allowable action.

I will agree that on the face of this situation, it would appear the OP's husband may have been very wrong but without all the info needed, it is impossible to correctly state that.
 

altTab

Junior Member
I have to disagree with you, justalayman. Entering the property was not trespassing.

I informed her friend that he would need to tell whomever is coming to pick him up to please call first or I would take him home.
This is pretty ambiguous. I could see it being read as her not requiring him to call first, merely requesting it as a favor. Besides, if you notice the OP didn't tell the other man, she told his son to tell him. For all we know the message didn't even go through. :confused: The fact that every owner is not aware consent has been given does not make it trespassing.

There's always this, too:
The following persons may enter such land of another unless forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner or lawful occupier thereof: ...persons in the sole process of retrieving their domestic livestock or other animals
:p

On the other hand, it would appear that if the OP's husband asked the other man to leave and he refused, he would be guilty of trespassing.
 
Last edited:

justalayman

Senior Member
alttab, look up trespassing.

heck, I'll look it up for you:

TRESPASS TO LAND



DEFINITION

Trespass to land occurs where a person directly enters upon another's land without permission, or remains upon the land, or places or projects any object upon the land.

This tort is actionable per se without the need to prove damage.

By contrast, nuisance is an indirect interference with another's use and enjoyment of land, and normally requires proof of damage to be actionable.



THE WAYS IN WHICH TRESPASS MAY OCCUR

1. Entering upon land

Walking onto land without permission, or refusing to leave when permission has been withdrawn, or throwing objects onto land are all example of trespass to land. For example, see Basely v Clarkson (1681) 3 Lev 37, below

there mere act of entering anothers property without permission from the owner or one authorized to act on behalf of the owner is trespassing. There was no permission given to the father of the child. It makes no difference whether the son relayed the message or not. It is still a trespass.

Next defense please.

I'll cite my reference since it is correct.

http://www.lawteacher.net/Tort/Trespass Land/Trespass to Land.htm
 

Kane

Member
are you this ignorant? The UPS guy would be an invitee (more than likey) and the kids licensee's (as long as they were welcome. If neither is welcome, they are trespassers as well.
"More than likely"?

"As long as they're welcome"?

How the hell do they know that ahead of time? Do you really think anybody who knocks on your door is taking his life in his hands if he hasn't gotten some sort of legal waiver from you ahead of time?

as to the neighbor, same thing.
"Zucchini-lady stabbed by knife-wielding maniac. 'I told her I didn't want any more of her damn zucchini,' maniac says."

Now to the knife. As I stated SEVERAL TIMES, without all the info, it is impossible to make the call. Ok laws allow protection of your property. Go read the laws and then tell me I am wrong.
It's very possible to make the call. There is no law, in any state, that authorizes a land-owner to shoot somebody, or stab them, or throw a knife, for 'trespassing.'

It's very easy to prove me wrong on this. Just cite one law, anywhere, that says you can use deadly force against someone for driving down your driveway. Just one law, that's all I'm asking.

if they are trespassers, failed to ID themselves, and are percieved as a threat to the landowner, force can be used, regardless if it is the parent or not (which obvioulsy could not be discerned due to the lack of identifying themselves)
Dude, even if it was trespassing to drive down somebody's driveway to pick up your kid - which it's not - you still can't throw a knife to defend against it.

And even if 'failing to ID' to a guy getting ready to throw a knife at you was a crime - which it's not - you still got to give the guy a trial before you execute him for it.

Don't bet on it. If the owner percieves the trespasser as a threat, the castle doctrine laws being passed around the country are allowing some extreme actions on the landowners part.
I am betting on it. How much do you want to bet?

good. sounds like you have at least some parenting skills. About calling the cops, AGAIN, if the trespasser failed to identify himself and merely sat in car for some unkown reason,
Most likely the reason was so the knife would hit the windshield, and not his face.

he could be considered a threat to some.
How the hell was he supposed to leave without getting in his car? And you really think getting in your car is 'threatening'? Seriously?

He then would have to expain his actions to the police as well. Sounds like a stand off since there was no bodily harm on either side.
Uh...

Dad: "I came to get my son, and this maniac threw a knife at me."

Knife-wielding maniac: "He threatened me, by getting in his car."

Police:************** "Well, I guess this is a standoff. After all, it's not like throwing a knife at someone is a FELONY."

Without reading the applicable laws AND having more information, it is impossible to ascertain this conclusion.


So, go read the applicable Ok laws, and then when and if we get all the info needed, then make the call. Until then, you are simply being reactionary to what you percieve as the correct and allowable action.
How about this: you link up any law - in OK, or any state - that says you can use a deadly weapon against someone merely for driving up your driveway.

I'd be happy to do it myself, except THERE ISN'T ONE, so I CAN'T.

I will agree that on the face of this situation, it would appear the OP's husband may have been very wrong but without all the info needed, it is impossible to correctly state that.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top