The Common Law Crime of Kidnapping: Lindbergh’s Baby

By Sherri Stewart

Kidnapping, as defined by the Common Law (the legal system the United States adopted from England), was a misdemeanor, punishable by fine, imprisonment, or pillory—also known as stocks. However, depending on its gravity, kidnapping is now considered a dangerous felony—even rising to a capital offense, especially if it involves ransom, extortion, or harm to the victim. The elements of a kidnapping are varied, but most involve unlawful asportation (substantial movement) and secret confinement of a person without consent, by means of threat, force, or trickery.

One of the most famous criminal cases of the twentieth century involved the kidnapping of the baby of aviator Lieutenant Charles Lindbergh on March 1^st, 1932. At approximately 10 P.M. the Lindberghs’ nurse, Betty Gow, found that 20-month-old Charles Lindbergh Jr. was not in his crib. Gow then alerted Charles Lindbergh, who immediately went to the child’s room, where he found a ransom note, containing bad handwriting and grammar, in an envelope on the windowsill. Taking a gun, Lindbergh searched the grounds with the butler, and they found impressions of a ladder and footprints under the window of the baby's room, a wooden ladder with one of the steps broken, and a baby's blanket. 

Once the police were contacted and word spread, a circus of reporters and fans crowded the Lindbergh house for months. Not only that, mountains of letters and hundreds of phone calls from people claiming they knew something bombarded the police and the Lindberghs—even Al Capone called from prison offering his help. As the police followed up on each crank call, they lost valuable time finding the baby. New ransom notes arrived via a go-between, one of which Lindbergh paid in gold certificates to a man in disguise who spoke with an accent, but he didn’t produce the baby.

Two months later, a delivery truck driver pulled over to the side of the road and discovered the dead toddler hidden in a cluster of trees, less than five miles from the family’s home. In the months and years that followed, the police tracked the serial numbers on the gold certificates, finally getting a hit at a car repair shop. The repairman identified the man who’d given it to him as Bruno Richard Hauptmann, a German immigrant. The police tore apart his garage and found buried there several gold certificates with the same serial numbers as well as other incriminating evidence. 

In the case, The State of New Jersey v. Bruno Richard Hauptmann (1935), although Hauptmann maintained his innocence and the evidence was circumstantial, the jury found him guilty, and he died by electric chair.

An analysis of the elements of the crime of kidnapping are undeniable. It was unlawful to take the child from the home. There was movement (asportation) of almost five miles, the child was taken at night in secret and hidden in a cluster of trees, but the question is—when did the child die? The ladder showed a broken step, so is it possible Baby Lindbergh wasn’t meant to die, but was accidentally dropped when Hauptmann fell off the ladder? Since all parties, have now passed away, we’ll never know the answer.

Even so, the case still finds its way into modern novels and movies, The Aviator’s Wife, Murder on the Orient Express, and Along Came a Spider.

 

Selah Award finalist Sherri Stewart loves a clean novel, sprinkled with romance and a strong message that challenges her faith. She spends her working hours with books—either editing others’ manuscripts or writing her own. Her passions are traveling to the settings of her books and sampling the food. She traveled to Paris for this book, and she still works daily on her French, although she doesn’t need to since everyone speaks English. A recent widow, Sherri lives in Orlando with her lazy dog, Lily. She shares recipes, tidbits of the book’s locations, and other authors' books in her newsletter.

Subscribe at http://eepurl.com/gZ-mv9

 Selah Award Finalist: What Hides behind the Walls

If the Nazis stole your house, wouldn’t you be justified in stealing it back now that the war is over?

When Tamar Feldman admits to her husband, Daniel, and mentor, Neelie Visser, that she broke into her former home, they scold her for taking such a risk. Tamar is tired of being careful. She’s tired of living in the present, as if the past doesn’t matter. But the painting of the violin girl in her former bedroom draws her back again and again. She finally steals the painting to return it to its former owner. Now maybe this small act of justice will help her start to heal. What Tamar doesn’t realize is the past isn’t finished with her yet; in fact, it’s as close as the walls in her house and even follows her to Paris.

https://amzn.to/3fxHAHo

Attractive Nuisance

 By Sherri Stewart

What do refrigerators, constructions sites, and swimming pools have in common? Like outdoor magnets they draw children to them, enticing kids to hide in them and play in them and jump in them. And because children aren’t wise enough to know danger when they see it, these attractive sites can cause death or injury. 

The attractive nuisance doctrine emerged from case law in England, starting with Lynch v. Nurdin in 1841. In that case, the court held that the owner of a cart left unattended on the street was liable for injuries to a child who climbed onto the cart and fell. The doctrine was first applied in the United States in Sioux City & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Stout, an 1873 case in which a railroad company was held liable for injuries to a child who climbed onto an unsecured railway turntable. The term “attractive nuisance” was first used in 1875 in Keffe v. Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.

The attractive nuisance doctrine states that an owner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. The doctrine is designed to protect children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object, by imposing liability on the owner. The doctrine has held landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property. 

There is no set cutoff point that defines youth. The courts evaluate each "child" on a case-by-case basis to see if the "child" qualifies as a youth. If it is determined that the child was able to understand and appreciate the danger, the doctrine of attractive nuisance will not likely apply. 

Under the Common Law, the plaintiff had to show that it was the artificial hazardous condition itself which lured the child onto the owner's property. In most jurisdictions, there are five conditions that must be met for an owner to be liable for tort damages to a child trespasser: First of all, the place where the condition exists is one on which the owner has reason to know that children are likely to trespass.

Second, the condition is one of which the owner has reason to know will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children. In the case of Bjlrk v. Tacoma in 1913, a three-year-old child drowned in a flume in which an opening had been left uncovered, the flume being in an open, unfenced lot where children were accustomed to play. The court found the landowner liable for the death of the child. 

Third, the children, because of their youth, do not appreciate the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it. For example, a toddler might lock himself inside a refrigerator because they don't recognize the danger. However, a teenager knows or should know the danger of such an act. Thus, if a teenager and a toddler suffer injuries inside refrigerators, the refrigerator owner might be liable for the toddler's injuries but not the teenager's injuries.

Fourth, the utility of maintaining the condition or eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved. This is called the risk v. utility test. Is it financially feasible to put a high fence around an amusement park that moves from one city to the next each week? Is it feasible to put a fence around a swimming pool in one’s backyard?

Fifth, the owner fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the child. Reasonable is the limiting standard because, as was aptly said, in Gordon v. Snoqualmie Lumber & Shingle Co, "Almost everything will attract some child. The pretty horse, or the bright red mowing machine, or the pond in the farmer's field, the millpond, canal, the railroad cars, the moving carriage in the street, electric works, and infinite other things attract a child as well as the city's reservoir. To what things is the rule to be limited? And where will not the curiosity, the thoughtlessness and the agile feet of the truant boy carry him? He climbs into the high barn and the high cherry tree. Are they, too, to be watched and guarded against him? As was well said in Gillespie v. McGowan, 100 Pa. St. 144, this rule 'would charge the duty of the protection of children upon every member of the community except their parents.' A very onerous duty.”

Now it's your turn. This law question comes from my book, Deer Eyes. Two eight-year-old boys crawled through some holes in the fence surrounding their school playground during the summer to reach a construction site of an apartment complex. No workers were there at the time, so the boys began exploring everything they could find. One boy climbed to the third floor of a partially built apartment building but slipped on some sawdust. He slipped over the edge and fell onto the concrete floor three stories below, breaking his neck and dying instantly. The fence they’d crawled through was owned and maintained by the school. There had been two prior incidents where children had escaped and gone to play in a creek during school hours. If one of the boys’ parents sue for wrongful death, who should they sue, and will they win their suit?’”

Selah Award finalist Sherri Stewart loves a clean novel, sprinkled with romance and a strong message that challenges her faith. She spends her working hours with books—either editing others’ manuscripts or writing her own. Her passions are traveling to the settings of her books and sampling the food. She traveled to Paris for this book, and she still works daily on her French, although she doesn’t need to since everyone speaks English. A recent widow, Sherri lives in Orlando with her lazy dog, Lily. She shares recipes, tidbits of the book’s locations, and other authors' books in her newsletter.

Subscribe at http://eepurl.com/gZ-mv9

 Selah Award Finalist: What Hides behind the Walls

 If the Nazis stole your house, wouldn’t you be justified in stealing it back now that the war is over?

When Tamar Feldman admits to her husband, Daniel, and mentor, Neelie Visser, that she broke into her former home, they scold her for taking such a risk. Tamar is tired of being careful. She’s tired of living in the present, as if the past doesn’t matter. But the painting of the violin girl in her former bedroom draws her back again and again. She finally steals the painting to return it to its former owner. Now maybe this small act of justice will help her start to heal. What Tamar doesn’t realize is the past isn’t finished with her yet; in fact, it’s as close as the walls in her house and even follows her to Paris.

https://amzn.to/3fxHAHo

The Mousetrap Game and the Duty of Care

By Sherri Stewart

Have you ever played the game called Mousetrap or made your own mousetrap? A marble travels down a slope and knocks over a row of dominoes that sets off the sway of a spoon hanging from a string…you get the idea. The tort called negligence is much like the mousetrap game in that one must prove a link between an act that caused an injury, and whether the person that caused the harm owed a duty of care to the injured party. But sometimes, like the mousetrap game, it’s not clear.

The most famous negligence case in U.S. history is Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928).The question to be decided by the court was whether the railroad company owed a duty of care to a person injured at a distance.

On a warm summer day in Brooklyn, Helen Palsgraf, along with her two daughters, stood on the platform waiting to catch a train to the beach. As another train (not hers) began to move, a man carrying a package ran to catch the train and leapt aboard, with the help of a platform guard pushing him from behind. But in the process, the man fumbled the package, which dropped and exploded, for it apparently contained fireworks. The force of the explosion caused a coin-operated scale to topple onto Helen, who stood at a distance of ten feet away. No one was hurt enough to spend the night in the hospital, though Helen was bruised, suffered from shock, and several days later began stuttering due to the trauma at the New York station.

If you watch commercials, you’re aware of negligence cases which involve automobile accidents, slip and falls, medical malpractice, product liability, and accidents on the job. In all these cases, the courts must prove four elements: duty, breach, causation, and harm. One of the questions always asked is whether the harm was foreseeable.

In the Palsgraf case, the court determined that although the railroad employee was negligent when he pushed the man from behind, he was not negligent to Mrs. Palsgraf because it wasn’t foreseeable that a box dropped would cause a person standing at a distance to be injured by a scale. Because of this case, limitations are placed on who can sue for damages, which frees courts from spurious lawsuits.

 

Your turn: Adam accepted an invitation from his friend Dot to attend a baseball game. The seats Dot had purchased were very good, a few rows up from the field, and just past first base. Adam had recently immigrated to the United States and knew nothing about baseball.

During the game, a player, Brad, hit a ground ball toward third base. The third baseman fielded the ball and threw to the first baseman. Brad thought he was “safe,” but the first base umpire called him “out.” Brad began to argue with the umpire, and in frustration, Brad threw his batting helmet to the ground. The helmet, made of a strong, plastic material, bounced on the ground and flew into the stands, striking Adam on the side of the head, causing a serious injury. Adam never saw the helmet coming towards him because he was looking around the stadium at the time rather than at the play on the field. Does Adam have a case against the team?

Selah Award finalist Sherri Stewart loves a clean novel, sprinkled with romance and a strong message that challenges her faith. She spends her working hours with books—either editing others’ manuscripts or writing her own. Her passions are traveling to the settings of her books and sampling the food. She traveled to Paris for this book, and she still works daily on her French, although she doesn’t need to since everyone speaks English. A recent widow, Sherri lives in Orlando with her lazy dog, Lily. She shares recipes, tidbits of the book’s locations, and other authors' books in her newsletter.

Subscribe at http://eepurl.com/gZ-mv9

 

Selah Award Finalist: What Hides behind the Walls

If the Nazis stole your house, wouldn’t you be justified in stealing it back now that the war is over?

When Tamar Feldman admits to her husband, Daniel, and mentor, Neelie Visser, that she broke into her former home, they scold her for taking such a risk. Tamar is tired of being careful. She’s tired of living in the present, as if the past doesn’t matter. But the painting of the violin girl in her former bedroom draws her back again and again. She finally steals the painting to return it to its former owner. Now maybe this small act of justice will help her start to heal. What Tamar doesn’t realize is the past isn’t finished with her yet; in fact, it’s as close as the walls in her house and even follows her to Paris.

https://amzn.to/3fxHAHo