[hauerf]

If a firefighter or policeman had been injured or killed, then that person's family could have sued. For this worthless turd, the result of the trial should have been that his family pay the defendants' court costs. While we're at it, their lawyer should have been reprimanded for introducing BS hypotheticals that did not in fact occur.

[ClearCase_guy]

I think your point is very good. If the establishment is on fire, then a firefighter has a perfect right to enter it. Even to bring an axe and start chopping. Everyone recognizes that firefighters can do things that are denied to the man in the street.

Burglars do not have such permission. By clearly doing something that he was not allowed to do, I would say that the Burglar, and his family, lost any right to sue for damages.

But the judge sees it differently.

[supercat]

While we're at it, their lawyer should have been reprimanded for introducing BS hypotheticals that did not in fact occur.

Such a hypothetical would be reasonable in a criminal case against the person who set the trap, as it goes to the core of why setting such traps is illegal. On the other hand, the decedent wasn't a firefighter or other legal first responder. He was a crook.

I would have no trouble with criminal charges against the man who set the trap, were he still alive, but I see no reason the decedent's family should get one penny from his crime.