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.

1
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.
2
Wolf v. Pig

• A fascinating legal look at the story of the
  Three Little Pigs as only Wests unique case-law
  collection could tell itwith a synopsis,
  headnotes and Key Numbers.
• Whimsical 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 Wests CD-ROM and print publications.

3
Contents

• Synopsis
• This humorous summary of what happened in the
  classic childrens tale, told as Wolf v. Pig,
  shows you the research advantages of Wests
  synopsis of the procedure, main facts and holding
  of a case .......Synopsis
• Headnotes and Key Numbers
• Youll see how Wests 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
• 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

4
Synopsis

• .
• Every West synopsis gives you the trial
  judges name that you can use to check his or her
  record on appeal, in general, or on a type of
  case or issue youll 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. Its another unique advantage of
  the Topic and Key Number System

• Wolf brought action against Pig for injuries
  sustained while attempting entry into Pigs
  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 Pigs 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

5
Headnotes and Key Numbers

• Always look for the Key Number in every
  opinion reported in Wests 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 wont be missed due to an overlooked
  search term.

• 1. EVIDENCE 129(5)
• Evidence that Wolf blew down Pigs brothers
  homes shortly before attempting to blow down
  Pigs house was relevant to issue of whether
  Wolfs intent in knocking on Pigs 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.

6

• 2. NEGLIGENCE 32(2.3), 33(2)
• Wolf was trespasser, not invitee, when
  he entered Pigs premises to eat him or his
  brothers, for purposes of Wolfs premises
  liability claim against Pig arising from injuries
  Wolf sustained in pot of boiling water.

• 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 havent
  missed a crucial case.

7

• 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.

• 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.

8

• Heres 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 cant give you to help you
  search with maximum confidence.

• 5. NEGLIGENCE 47
• Landowners duty to protect trespassers
  from hidden perils does not extend to fireplaces
  or chimneys.

9

• 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 Pigs home through chimney supported
  award of nominal damages evidence indicated that
  Wolfs purpose in entering house was to eat Pig
  and/or his brothers. Restatement (Second) of
  Torts 162.

10

• 8. DAMAGES 55
• Damages for emotional distress are not
  recoverable in trespass action.
• 9. DAMAGES 91(1)
• Evidence that trespasser descended
  premises owners 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.

• 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.

11
Text of Opinion

• 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

• 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.
• Its another Topic and Key Number System
  exclusive that helps you find important cases you
  might otherwise miss.

12

• On the day in question, Wolf appeared at Pigs
  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 Pigs two brothers had
  arrived shortly before, informing Pig that Wolf
  had destroyed their home and wanted to eat them.
• Wolf then attempted to destroy Pigs
  home, but finding it to be
• sturdier than those of Pigs
  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.
• Wolfs complaint was based on the theories of
  premises liability and assault. Pig
  counterclaimed, alleging trespass.

13

• 1 Before considering the parties
  substantive claims, we must resolve an
  evidentiary issue. At trial, evidence was
  admitted concerning the incidents involving Wolf
  and Pigs 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 Wolfs intent when he
  knocked on Pigs 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 Pigs 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 Wolfs intent. Wolfs actions, as shown by
  this evidence, were inconsistent with those of an
  honest brush salesman.

• 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 youll see what a help this West
  exclusive can be.

14

• 2.3 Wolf claims that Pig breached the
  duty owed to him as an invitee. However, if, as
  the jury apparently found, Wolf entered Pigs
  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).
• 4 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.
• 5 Aside from the fact that the incident in
  question took place in the summer, we disagree
  that the landowners
  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.

15

• 6 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).
• 7 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.

16

• 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.