Chief Justice Hayt

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is admitted or proven beyond controversy that appellee received a gunshot wound at the hands of the appellant at *115the time and place designated in the complaint, and that as the result of such wound the appellee was seriously injured. It is further shown that the shooting occurred under the following circumstances:

That Mr. Courvoisier, on the night in question, was asleep in his bed in the second story of a brick building, situate at the corner of South Broadway and Dakota streets in South Denver; that he occupied a portion of the lower floor of this building as a jewelry store. He was aroused from his bed shortly after midnight by parties shaking or trying to open the door of the jewelry store. These parties, when asked by him as to what they wanted, insisted upon being admitted, and upon his refusal to comply with this request, they used-profane and abusive epithets toward him. Being unable to gain admission, they broke some signs upon the front of the building, and then entered the building by another entrance, and passing upstairs commenced knocking upon the door of a room where defendant’s sister was sleeping. Courvoisier partly dressed himself, and, taking his revolver, went upstairs and expelled-the intruders from the building. In doing this he passed downstairs and out on the sidewalk as far as the entrance to his store, which was at the corner of the building. The parties expelled from the building, upon reaching the rear of the store, were joined by two or three others. In order to frighten these parties away, the defendant fired a shot in the air, but instead of retreating they passed around to the street in front, throwing stones and brickbats at the defendant, whereupon he fired a second and perhaps a third shot. The first shot fired attracted the attention of plaintiff Raymond and two deputy sheriffs, who were at the Tramway depot, across the street. These officers started toward Mr. Courvoisier, who still continued to shoot, but two of them stopped when they reached the men in the street, for the purpose of arresting them, Mr. Raymond alone proceeding towards the defendant, calling out to him that he was an officer and to stop shooting. Although the night was dark, - the street was well lighted by electricity, and when the officer *116approached him defendant shaded his eyes, and, taking deliberate aim, fired, causing the injury complained of.

The plaintiff’s theory of the case is that he was a duly authorized police officer, and in the discharge of his duties at the time; that the defendant was committing a breach of the peace, and that the defendant, knowing him to be a police officer, recklessly fired the shot in question.

The defendant claims that the plaintiff was approaching him at the time in a threatening attitude, and that the surrounding circumstances were such as to cause a reasonable man to believe that his life was in danger, and that it was necessary to shoot in self-defense, and that defendant did so believe at the time of firing the shot.

The first error argued brings up for review the action of the district court in overruling a challenge interposed by the defendant to the juror Gibbons. The ground of this challenge will appear from the following:

“ Q. Have you served as a juror within the year last past? A. I was called a few weeks ago on one case in the county court.

“ Q. As a talesman? A. Yes, sir.

“The Court. When did you serve, Mr. Gibbons? A. A few weeks ago.

“The Court. Since the first of January? A. Yes, sir.”

The statute relied upon to support the challenge reads as follows:

“ The fact that any juror in any district or county court shall have served as juror of the regular panel, or as talesman, in either of said courts at anytime within the year next preceding, shall be a sufficient excuse for such juror from service in the same court and may also be ground for challenge for cause to such individual juror.” Session Laws, 1889, page 220, sec. 1.

The statute limits the exception to service a second time within the year in the same court, and we think it was likewise intended to thus restrict this ground of challenge for cause. This has been the uniform practice under the stat*117ute, and we think it must be upheld as the obvious meaning of the act.

The second error assigned is upon the overruling of defendant’s objections to certain hypothetical questions propounded by plaintiff to medical experts. These questions called for the opinion of the witnesses as to the natural result of the wound received by plaintiff. It is claimed that the questions do not describe the wound with sufficient certainty, and that the evidence of the extent of the injury is not sufficient to form a basis for any hypothetical questions or for expert opinions upon the probable effects of the wound. We think the objections to these questions were properly overruled. The questions contain such a description of the wound as is easily understood by the lay mind, and the answers show that it was fully understood by the experts. The questions are framed upon the assumption that the evidence tended to prove certain facts. This assumption, being within the probable or possible range of the evidence, is permissible. Jackson v. Burnham, 20 Colo. 582.

The third assignment of error challenges the refusal of the court to permit witnesses for the defendant to testify as to whether or not, as a result of a criminal prosecution, one of the participants was convicted of “throwing a stone and hitting Mr. Courvoisier that night.” The objection to this question was properly sustained. If proof of such conviction was admissible, the record is the best evidence thereof, except in the instances specified by statute. Mills’ Annotated Statutes, sec. 4822. But as this action is between other parties, even the record is not admissible in this case.

It was attempted to prove by the witness Reed, who was at the time marshal of the town of South Denver, that the neighborhood in the immediate vicinity of defendant’s house had been the scene of frequent robberies and disturbances shortly prior to this shooting. This evidence was offered for the purpose of justifying the defendant’s action. It is claimed that conduct which would cause no apprehension in a quiet and peaceful neighborhood would naturally and rea*118sonably excite alarm if disturbances and breaches of the peace were frequent. We think, however, the court was justified in refusing this evidence. Its tendency is to raise collateral issues, and thereby divert the attention of the jury.

Under the fourth assignment of error it is claimed that evidence of the financial standing of the defendant was not admissible. If the jury believed from the evidence that the shooting was done with malice, or that the injury was the result of a wanton and reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights and not in necessary self-defense, exemplary damages might have been awarded, and wherever such damages are permissible, the financial condition of the defendant may be shown. In a number of cases, commencing with Murphy v. Hobbs, 7 Colo. 541, it has been held that in civil actions for injuries resulting from torts, exemplary damages, as a punishment, were not permissible, if the offense is punishable under the criminal laws. These decisions were based upon the common law. In 1889 the legislature provided, by statute, that exemplary damages may be given in certain cases. Before the passage of this act the question was one upon which the courts disagreed, but the statute has now settled the practice in this state.

The next error assigned relates to the instructions given by the court to the jury and to those requested by the defendant and refused by the court. The second instruction given by the court was clearly erroneous. The instruction is as follows: “The court instructs you that if you believe from the evidence, that, at the time the defendant shot the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not assaulting the defendant, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff.”

The vice of this instruction is that it excluded from the juiy a full consideration of the justification claimed by the defendant. The evidence for the plaintiff tends to show that the shooting, if not malicious, was wanton and reckless, but the evidence for the defendant tends to show that the circumstances surrounding him at the time of the shooting were such as to lead a reasonable man to believe that his life *119was in danger, or that he was in danger of receiving great bodily harm at the hands of the plaintiff, and the defendant testified that he did so believe.

He swears that his house was invaded shortly after midnight by two men, whom he supposed to be burglars; that when ejected, they were joined on the outside by three or four others; that the crowd so formed assaulted him with stones and other missiles, when, to frighten them away, he shot into the air; that instead of going away someone approached him from the direction of the crowd; that he supposed this person to be one of the rioters, and did not ascertain that it was the plaintiff until after the shooting. He says that he had had no previous acquaintance with plaintiff; that he did not know that he was a police officer, or that there were any police officers in the town of South Denver; that he heard nothing said at the time by the plaintiff or anyone else that caused him to think the plaintiff was an officer; that his eyesight was greatly impaired, so that he was obliged to use glasses, and that he was without glasses at the time of the shooting, and for this reason could not see distinctly. He then adds: “I saw a man come away from the hunch of men and come up towards me, and as I looked around I saw this man put his hand to his hip pocket. I didn’t think I had time to jump aside, arid therefore turned around and fired, at him. I had no doubts but it was somebody that had come to rob me, because some weeks before Mr. Wilson’s store was robbed. It is next door to mine.”

By this evidence two phases of the transaction are presented for consideration: First, was the plaintiff assaulting the defendant at the time plaintiff was shot? Second, if not, was there sufficient evidence of justification for the consideration of the jury? The first question was properly submitted, but the second was excluded by the instruction under review. The defendant’s justification did not rest entirely upon the proof of assault by the plaintiff. A riot was in progress, and the defendant swears that he was attacked with missiles, hit with stones, brickbats, etc.; that he shot *120plaintiff, supposing him to be one of the rioters. We must assume these facts as established in reviewing the instruction, as we cannot say what the jury might have found had this evidence been submitted to them under a proper charge.

By the second instruction the conduct of those who started the fracas was eliminated from the consideration of the jury. If the jury believed from the evidence that the defendant would have been justified in shooting one of the rioters had such person advanced towards him as did the plaintiff, then it became important to determine whether the defendant mistook plaintiff for one of the rioters, and if such a mistake was in fact made, was it excusable in the light of all the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the commission of the act? If these issues had been resolved by the jury in favor of the defendant, he would have been entitled to a judgment. Morris v. Platt, 32 Conn. 75; Patton v. People, 18 Mich. 318; Kent v. Cole, 84 Mich. 579; Higgins v. Minaghan, 76 Wis. 268.

The opinion in the first of the cases above cited contains an exhaustive review of the authorities and is very instructive. The action was for damages resulting from a pistol shot wound. The defendant justified under the plea of self-defense. The proof for the plaintiff tended to show that he was a mere bystander at a riot, when he received a shot aimed at another, and the court held that, if the defendant was justified in firing the shot at'his antagonist, he was not liable to the plaintiff, for the reason that .the act of shooting was lawful under the circumstances.

Where a defendant in a civil action like the one before us attempts to justify on a plea of necessary self-defense, he must satisfy the jury not only that he acted honestly in using force, but that his fears were reasonable under the circumstances; and also as to the reasonableness of the means made use of. In this case perhaps the verdict would not have been different had the jury been properly instructed, but it might have been, and therefore the judgment must be reversed.

Reversed.

EMAS, J.

Francisco and Sonia Pages (“Dr. and Mrs. Pages”) appeal two lower court orders: (1) an order denying their exceptions to, and adopting, the general magistrate’s Report and Recommendation; and (2) a final order dismissing their amended complaint with prejudice and entering final judgment in favor of Julio Rafael Seliman-Tapia (“Tapia”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

On December 27, 2009, Dr. and Mrs. Pages were in the parking lot of the Dolphin Mall when they were confronted by Tapia, who accused Dr. Pages of parking too close to his car, causing it to become inoperable.1 According to witnesses who testified at an evidentiary hearing, Dr. Pages became very agitated, and was acting in an aggressive and confrontational manner toward Tapia, who had his hands in his pockets and was backing away from Dr. Pages. Dr. Pages continued to be confrontational and was bumping into Ta-*538pia with his chest. Mrs. Pages got between her husband and Tapia. At some point, Dr. Pages turned toward Tapia’s wife, Ms. Singer, who was telling Dr. Pages to calm down. Dr. Pages then rushed toward Ms. Singer in an aggressive manner. At this point Tapia became worried about his wife, who was disabled, and Tapia rushed toward Dr. Pages and pushed him down, causing Dr. Pages to hit his head. Mrs. Pages testified that Tapia picked Dr. Pages up and threw him in the air, causing him to land on his head. She also testified that in doing so, Tapia made contact with Mrs. Pages, and that her back hurt for a few days afterward. Mrs. Pages was the only witness who testified that Tapia came into contact with her when Tapia pushed Dr. Pages down.

Tapia was later charged by information with felony battery on Dr. Pages and misdemeanor battery on Mrs. Pages. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, Tapia pled guilty to the misdemeanor battery, was adjudicated guilty, and the State entered a nolle prosequi to the felony battery charge.

The Pages filed a civil lawsuit against Tapia, and in the complaint asserted two counts — assault and battery against Dr. Pages and loss of consortium on Mrs. Pages’ behalf. The complaint was later amended to include an additional count of assault and battery upon Mrs. Pages.

Tapia asserted entitlement to immunity based on Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws.2 The issue of immunity was referred to a general magistrate, who conducted an evidentiary hearing on June 14, 2012.3 The general magistrate found that Tapia had established his entitlement to immunity under section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2009), applying a preponderance of the evidence standard. See State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Specifically, the magistrate found that Mrs. Pages was not credible, and that the testimony of all the other witnesses established that Dr. Pages was the aggressor, and that Tapia acted only when Dr. Pages began moving aggressively toward Tapia’s wife.4 Dr. and Mrs. Pages filed exceptions to the general magistrate’s Report and Recommendation and, after a hearing, the trial court denied the exceptions and adopted the general magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. The court later entered final judgment in favor of Tapia, and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.

On appeal, we apply a mixed standard of review: “The trial court’s legal conclusion[s are] reviewed de novo, but its findings of fact are presumed correct and can be reversed only if not supported by competent substantial evidence.” Darling v. State, 81 So.3d 574, 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Chapter 776, Florida Statutes, encompasses what is referred to as Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. Under section 776.032(1):

A person who uses force as permitted in s.776.012, s.776.013, or s.776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil ac*539tion for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer....

Section 776.012 (“Use of force in defense of person”) provides in pertinent part:

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

Section 776.013, titled “Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm,” provides, inter alia:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place5 where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another....

§ 776.018(3).

Dr. and Mrs. Pages assert that Tapia was not entitled to immunity because, under section 776.013(3), he was “engaged in unlawful activity” when he pushed Dr. Pages. As evidence that Tapia was “engaged in unlawful activity,” Dr. and Mrs. Pages point to Tapia’s plea of guilty to the misdemeanor battery charge on Mrs. Pages. In other words, Dr. and Mrs. Pages argue, Tapia’s guilty plea and adjudication of guilt for a battery upon Mrs. Pages established, as a matter of law, that Tapia was “engaged in unlawful activity” when he pushed Dr. Pages, barring Tapia from seeking immunity under section 776.032.

Even if we were to find that the guilty plea to misdemeanor battery upon Mrs. Pages established as a matter of law that Tapia was “engaged in criminal activity” under section 776.013, it is beside the point: Tapia was entitled to, and did, assert immunity not only under section 776.013, but under section 776.012 as well. Under section 776.012, Tapia would be justified in using non-deadly force against Dr. Pages if he reasonably believed such force was necessary to defend himself or Ms. Singer (Tapia’s disabled wife) against Dr. Pages’ imminent use of unlawful force.

It is true that under section 776.013(3), a person may “meet force with force, including deadly force” (emphasis supplied), which on its face appears to contemplate the use of both deadly and non-deadly force. We also acknowledge that the person seeking immunity under section 776.013(3) must establish that he was “not engaged in unlawful activity.” However, this “not engaged in unlawful activity” language is not present in the applicable portion of section 776.012, which unambiguously provides for the justified use of non-deadly force. Section 776.032, by its express language, provides immunity for a person “who uses force as permitted in sections 776.012, 776.013 or 776.031.” This language evidences a clear legislative intent to provide alternative bases for asserting immunity under the Stand Your Ground Law.6

Therefore, even if Tapia was determined to have been “engaged in unlawful activi*540ty” (the misdemeanor battery upon Mrs. Pages) at the time of his use of force upon Dr. Pages, it is of no moment because the force used by Tapia upon Dr. Pages was non-deadly force and, under the relevant portion of section 776.012, Tapia need not establish that he was not engaged in unlawful activity.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate issued a detailed fourteen-page report and recommendation with factual findings, credibility assessments, and a conclusion that Tapia established by a preponderance of that evidence that he “had a reasonable fear for the safety of his wife, Ms. Singer, given Dr. Pages’ immediate and continuing aggressive behavior and, based on this reasonable fear, [Tapia] rushed over and pushed Dr. Pages hard to keep him from coming closer to his wife, Ms. Singer.”7 Thus, because a determination was made that Tapia reasonably believed he had to act to defend against Pages’ imminent use of “unlawful force” upon Tapia’s wife, Tapia was justified in the use of non-deadly force under section 776.012, rendering unnecessary any further discussion of the alternative provisions or requirements of section 776.013(3).

We conclude that there is competent substantial evidence to support the magis*541trate’s findings, and the trial court properly adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the claims against Tapia. See In re Drummond, 69 So.3d 1054, 1056 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding “a trial court must accept the magistrate’s findings of fact if they are supported by competent, substantial evidence.”)

Affirmed.

*373Opinion

BARRY-DEAL, J.

The issue presented in this appeal is whether a woman (appellant) suffering injuries from an ectopic pregnancy1 has a cause of action in tort against the responsible man (respondent) for his misrepresentations of infertility. The trial court ruled that no cause of action would lie and granted respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. We reverse the judgment.

I. Procedural Background

Respondent, an attorney, filed an action in municipal court against appellant for $1,520 in fees for representing her in a family law matter. Appellant filed her answer and a cross-complaint for damages alleging, inter alia, fraud and legal malpractice, and the action was transferred to the superior court. After a demurrer to the cross-complaint was filed, appellant by stipulation filed her first amended cross-complaint, which is the subject of this appeal. After several hearings on the demurrer to the amended cross-complaint, the court (Kongsgaard, J.) sustained a demurrer to the count alleging intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress and dismissed the two counts alleging legal malpractice for appellant’s failure to amend.2 The court overruled the demurrer to the count alleging battery and the one alleging intentional misrepresentation, in spite of respondent’s argument that an action was barred by Civil Code section 43.5, the “antiheart balm” statute.3

Prior to trial, on May 12, 1980, the Second District filed its opinion in Stephen K. v. Roni L. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 640 [164 Cal.Rptr. 618], holding that a man stated no cause of action in a cross-complaint against a woman for misrepresentations about her use of birth control in an action brought by her to establish paternity of their child and to impose on him an obligation for child support. In the case at bar, the court (Sherwin, J.) agreed with respondent that Stephen K. v. Roni L. was controlling and granted his motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was entered on *374July 25, 1980. Respondent’s complaint for fees was remanded to the municipal court for resolution.

II. Standard of Review and Factual Allegations

A motion for judgment on the pleadings based on failure to state a cause of action has a function similar to that of a general demurrer. (See 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Proceedings Without Trial, §§ 161-170, pp. 2816-2823.) On review of the judgment in either case, all material facts alleged in the pleading under attack must be accepted as true.4 (Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 666 [134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106]; Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626, 630 [99 Cal.Rptr. 393].); As a reviewing court, we, of course, are not bound by the trial court’s determination on whether the alleged facts state a cause of action. With these rules in mind, we summarize the essential facts alleged in appellant’s first amended cross-complaint.

Appellant and respondent met about April 1978. Appellant retained respondent, an attorney, to represent her in a postdissolution proceeding for modification of spousal support and child support for her three children; the legal relationship was in existence at the time of the alleged events. On two occasions, June 25 and June 30, 1978, she and respondent had sexual intercourse with each other. Before they engaged in sexual intercourse the first time, appellant demanded that respondent use a contraceptive device, i.e., a condom, and explained that for emotional and financial reasons she did not want to become pregnant. Appellant further told respondent “. . . that she would not engage in sexual intercourse with him if there was any likelihood of her becoming pregnant; ...” Respondent told appellant not to worry, saying, “ ‘I can’t possibly get anyone pregnant.’ ” She understood this to mean that he was sterile by nature or as the result of a vasectomy.

Respondent’s representation about his procreative inability was false, and he knew it was false. It was made with the intent to induce appellant to engage in sexual intercourse, protected or not. Appellant, relying on respondent’s assurance of his sterility, consented to and did engage in sexual intercourse with respondent. The attorney-client relationship produced in appellant a sense of trust in respondent, and she justifiably relied on his representations.

*375As a result of sexual intercourse with respondent, appellant became pregnant. The pregnancy was determined to be tubal, and, as a consequence, appellant was forced to undergo surgery to save her life. Her fallopian tube was removed, and she was rendered sterile by the surgery.5 She suffered physical, emotional, and financial injuries as a result of the pregnancy.

III. Cause of Action on Theories of Battery or Deceit

Based on the alleged facts, appellant has stated a cause of action in battery, i.e., an unconsented invasion of her interest in freedom from intentional, unlawful, and harmful or offensive contact with her person. (See Prosser, Torts (4th ed. 1971) § 9, pp. 34-37 [hereafter cited as Prosser]; 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Torts, § 194, pp. 2482-2483.) Consent to an act, otherwise a battery, normally vitiates the wrong. (Delia S. v. Torres (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 471, 480 [184 Cal.Rptr. 787]; Prosser, supra, § 18, p. 101.) However, appellant has alleged alternate grounds for invalidating her consent and rendering respondent’s act a battery: (1) that the act of impregnation exceeded the scope of the consent (see Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 239-240 [104 Cal.Rptr. 505, 502 P.2d 1]; Estrada v. Orwitz (1946) 75 Cal.App.2d 54, 57 [170 P.2d 43]), and (2) that the consent to intercourse was fraudulently induced (Prosser, supra, § 18, p. 105; see Butler v. Collins (1859) 12 Cal. 457, 463). As she has alleged physical, emotional, and financial damage proximately caused by the wrongful touching, appellant’s cause of action for battery was sufficiently pleaded.

As an alternative theory for recovery in tort, appellant pleaded deceit, an action sanctioned by Civil Code section 1709, which provides: “One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him [or her] to alter his [or her] position to his [or her] injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he [or she] thereby suffers.” Deceit, within the meaning of section 1709, is defined by Civil Code section 17106 to include both fraudulent misrepresentations (“The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true . . .”) and negligent misrepresentations (“The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable *376ground for believing it to be true . . .”). (See, generally, 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, Torts, supra, §§ 445-482, pp. 2710-2744; Prosser, supra, ch. 18, §§ 105-110, pp. 683-736; Rest.2d Torts, §§ 310, 551 A.)

In pleading a cause of action for deceit, a plaintiff must specifically plead the following elements: (1) a false representation (ordinarily of a fact) made by the defendant; (2) knowledge or belief on the part of the defendant that the representation is false, or that the representation was made by defendant without reasonable grounds for believing its truth; (3) an intention to induce the plaintiff to act or to refrain from action in reliance upon the misrepresentation; (4) justifiable reliance upon the representation by the plaintiff; (5) damage to the plaintiff, resulting from such reliance. (See Prosser, supra, § 105, pp. 685-686; Gagne v. Bertran (1954) 43 Cal.2d 481, 487-489 [275 P.2d 15]; O’Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 798, 804-805 [142 Cal.Rptr. 487].)

Appellant has pleaded all the essential allegations, as set forth above, of a cause of action for deceit. Respondent’s challenge to the sufficiency of the pleading, i.e., “She does not allege that she asked him what he meant by that ambiguous statement [“ ‘I can’t possibly get anyone pregnant’ ”] . . . ,” is meritless. His proposed allegation relates to proof of justifiable reliance at trial, not to sufficiency of the pleading.

IV. Basic Rule

It is a fundamental principle of our system of jurisprudence that for every legal wrong there is a remedy (Civ. Code, § 3523), and that an injured party should be compensated for all damage proximately caused by the wrongdoer unless a departure from the basic principle is mandated by a legislative exception or by strong public policy. (Crisci v. Security Ins. Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 425, 433 [58 Cal.Rptr. 13, 426 P.2d 173]; Murdock v. Murdock (1920) 49 Cal.App. 775, 782-783 [194 P. 762], citing Civ. Code, §§ 1667, 1708, 1709, 3523, and 2224; cf. Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 111-112 [70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561, 32 A.L.R.3d 496], characterizing Civ. Code, § 1714, as a basic principle of tort law.)

V. The “Antiheart Balm” Statute

Respondent asserts that appellant’s action comes within the statutory exception declared in Civil Code section 43.5 and is thus barred. We find that statute is not applicable. Section 43.5 provides, in relevant part, “No cause of action arises for: . . . [f] (c) Seduction . . . .” The word “[s]eduction,” as used in the statute, is a term of art involving elements substantively different from those alleged by appellant.

*377“Seduction imports the idea of illicit intercourse accomplished by the use of arts, persuasions, or wiles to overcome the resistance of a female who is not disposed of her own volition to step aside from the paths of virtue. [Citation.]” (Davis v. Stroud (1942) 52 Cal.App.2d 308, 317 [126 P.2d 409].) It is no longer possible for two consenting adults in the State of California to engage in “illicit intercourse. ” (See Note, California “Consenting Adults” Law: The Sex Act in Perspective (1976) 13 San Diego L.Rev. 439.)

The old action for seduction required that the woman was “. . . chaste and virtuous at the time of the alleged seduction ...” (Davis v. Stroud, supra, 52 Cal.App.2d at p. 316), and it was used primarily to protect young, inexperienced women who had succumbed to the sexual advances of older men. (See Carter v. Murphy (1938) 10 Cal.2d 547 [72 P.2d 1072].)

In the instant case appellant complains not because her virtue was violated or because she suffered humiliation and loss of reputation, but because the sexual act was unprotected and led to an ectopic pregnancy as a result of respondent’s misrepresentation. The gravamen of the complaint in this situation is substantially different from an action for “Reduction,” which is indeed precluded by Civil Code section 43.5.7 (Cf. Mack v. White (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 497, 500 [218 P.2d 76].)

Nevertheless, respondent argues that the public policy considerations underlying the statutory bar to seduction actions are sound and are applicable to the case before us. He points out that seduction actions are “. . . fruitful sources of fraud and extortion because of the ease with which they may be employed to embarrass, harass and besmirch the reputation of one wholly innocent of wrongdoing . . . ,” quoting from Ikuta v. Ikuta (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 787, 789 [218 P.2d 854]. He predicts a multitude of unfounded or fraudulent claims if appellant’s claim is allowed.

Our Supreme Court has held that fear of unfounded or fraudulent claims is not a valid reason for disallowing a tort action predicated upon a meritorious claim. In Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728 [69 Cal.Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912, 29 A.L.R.3d 1316], the court stated: “[t]he possibility that some fraud will escape detection does not justify an abdication of the judicial responsibility to award damages for sound claims: if it is ‘to be conceded that our procedural system for the ascertainment of truth is inadequate to defeat fraudulent claims . . . , the result is a virtual acknowledgment that *378the courts are unable to render justice in respect to them.’ [Citation.]” (Id., at p. 737.) The reasoning is sound and is applicable to the case before us.

VI. Inapplicability of Stephen K.

Appellant argues that the trial court mistakenly relied on Stephen K. v. Roni L., supra, 105 Cal.App.3d 640, because that case is factually distinguishable and the public policy considerations underlying the two actions differ. Respondent reiterates that appellant’s action contravenes public policy “. . .to eliminate governmental intervention into private sexual dealings . . . ,” as enunciated in Stephen K.

In that case, Stephen, the defendant in a paternity action, after admitting paternity, cross-complained against Roni, the mother of the child, claiming that she had falsely represented that she was taking birth control pills. The father alleged that in reliance upon such representation, he engaged in sexual intercourse with Roni, which eventually resulted in the birth of a baby unwanted by the father. He further alleged that as a proximate result of the misrepresentation, he had become obligated to support the child financially and had suffered mental distress.

In affirming the dismissal of Stephen’s cross-complaint, the court held that Roni’s misrepresentation was not actionable and gave rise to no liability. (Id., at p. 642.) In summary, the court concluded that “. . . the circumstances and the highly intimate nature of the relationship wherein the false representations may have occurred, are such that a court should not define any standard of conduct therefor.” (Id., at p. 643.) The court added that to “. . . supervise the promises made between two consenting adults as to the circumstances of their private sexual conduct . . . would encourage unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters affecting the individual’s right to privacy . . . ,” and that “. . . as a matter of public policy the practice of birth control, if any, engaged in by two partners in a consensual sexual relationship is best left to the individuals involved, free from any governmental interference.” (Id., at pp. 644-645.)

The facts in Stephen K. and in the case before us, both based on deceit, are obviously similar. A significant distinction between the cases, however, lies in the element of damage. In essence, Stephen was seeking damages for the “wrongful birth” of his child8 resulting in support obligations and al*379leged damages for mental suffering. Here, no child is involved; appellant is seeking damages for severe injury to her own body.

Although the Stephen K. court alluded to Stephen’s claim as separate and apart from the issue of either parent’s obligation to raise and support the child, it reached its decision without attempting to resolve the problem of the mother’s reduced financial ability to support the child if she were required to pay damages to the father. We think this concern over the child, and not governmental intrusion into private sexual matters, which we discuss below, is the central issue in Stephen K. and compels different public policy considerations.

Civil Code section 196a imposes on the natural father as well as the natural mother of a child the obligation to give the child support and education suitable to his or her circumstances. To assess damages against the mother for false representations about birth control would have the practical effect of reducing or eliminating support from the father by way of offset. Erasing much or all of the father’s financial support, to the detriment of the child, is clearly against public policy and the statutory mandate.

Further, we think it is not sound social policy to allow one parent to sue the other over the wrongful birth of their child. Using the child as the damage element in a tortious claim of one parent against the other could seldom, if ever, result in benefit to a child.9 Such a lawsuit would indeed be strong evidence of parental rejection, which could only be emotionally detrimental to the child. Such an action, with its potential for engendering disharmony between a mother and father, would also be contrary to the spirit of the recent legislation providing for mediation between parents in order to reduce acrimony. (See Civ. Code, § 4607.)

In short, we agree with the Stephen K. court that Roni’s misrepresentation was not actionable, but we find that different policy reasons justify that result. The question remains, however, whether allowing appellant’s action in the case before us encourages “. . . unwarranted governmental intrusion *380into matters affecting the individual’s right to privacy . . .” and thus contravenes public policy.

VII. Privacy Right Not Absolute10

The constitutional right to privacy extends to all matters relating to marriage, family, and sex. (People v. Belous (1969) 71 Cal.2d 954, 963 [80 Cal.Rptr. 354, 458 P.2d 194]; Cal. Const., art. I, § 1; Stanley v. Georgia (1968) 394 U.S. 557, 564 [22 L.Ed.2d 542, 549, 89 S.Ct. 1243]; Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479 [14 L.Ed.2d 510, 85 S.Ct. 1678]; Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) 405 U.S. 438 [31 L.Ed.2d 349, 92 S.Ct. 1029].) The right to privacy, however, is not absolute, and governmental intervention in matters affecting an individual’s right to privacy in sexual matters has been sanctioned in both criminal and civil law.

California has adopted a general scheme for the regulation of the criminal aspects of sexual activity and has determined when sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other shall be criminal. (In re Lane (1962) 58 Cal.2d 99, 102-104 [22 Cal.Rptr. 857, 372 P.2d 897] [citing specific penal statutes].) Prosecution under many of the penal statutes, covering both consensual and forcible sexual acts, often requires testimony of a far more intimate sexual nature than in the case before us. The victim of many of the proscribed acts suffers an invasion of privacy in both the act and the required testimony. And, the state has a fundamental right to enact laws which promote public health, welfare, and safety, even though such laws may invade the offender’s right of privacy. (People v. Mills (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 171, 181 [146 Cal.Rptr. 411] [compulsory registration of convicted sex offenders].)

Even sexual relations within marriage, long held sacrosanct, have recently been opened to scrutiny when a spouse complains of forcible sexual intercourse. (Pen. Code, § 262.) The ancient policy of protecting the privacy of the marriage bed is outweighed in the modern view by the grievous harm to a man or woman caused by spousal rape. (See Freeman, “But If You *381 Can't Rape Your Wife, Who[m] Can You Rape?”: The Marital Rape Exemption Re-Examined (1981) 15 Fam. L.Q. 1.)

In the civil law, for example, our Legislature has recently amended Evidence Code section 621 to state a limited exception to the rule that the issue of a wife cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent or sterile, is conclusively presumed to be a child of the marriage. (See also Civ. Code, § 7004, subd. (a).) Either husband or wife, under certain circumstances, can bring an action to establish that the husband is not the biological father of his wife’s child. (Evid. Code, § 621; cf. Michelle W. v. Ronald W. * (Cal.App.).) Here, traditional notions about the inviolability of certain aspects of human relationships have given way to recognition that former “protection” in reality worked hardship and injustice in many cases.

Where paternity of a child is at issue, the mother cannot refuse to answer all relevant questions about her sexual activity on the plea that it is a private matter. Her right of privacy must yield to “ ‘the historically important state interest of facilitating the ascertainment of truth in . . . legal proceedings.’ [Citation.]” (Fults v. Superior Court (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 899, 904 [152 Cal.Rptr. 210].) Nor can a man invoke the right of privacy to avoid a determination of paternity of a child he has fathered. (See Uniform Parentage Act (Civ. Code, §§ 7000-7021).)

Although the right to privacy is a freedom to be carefully guarded, it is evident that it does not insulate a person from all judicial inquiry into his or her sexual relations. We do not think it should insulate from liability one sexual partner who by intentionally tortious conduct causes physical injury to the other. (Cf. Marvin v. Marvin, supra, 18 Cal.3d 660, 682, fn. 21.) Public policy does not demand such protection for the right of privacy.

VIII. Analogy to Venereal Disease Cases

Three out-of-state cases, without discussing public policy or the right to privacy, have held that a woman’s consent to sexual intercourse was vitiated by the man’s fraudulent concealment of the risk of infection with venereal disease or infestation with vermin. (See De Vall v. Strunk (Tex.Civ.App. 1936) 96 S.W.2d 245 [single woman, seduced by promise of marriage, had action in battery against man who infected her with crab lice]; Crowell v. Crowell (1920) 180 N.C. 516 [105 S.E. 206] [wife was not under disability to maintain action for battery or fraud against husband for infecting her with venereal disease]; State v. Lankford (1917) 29 Del. 594 [102 A. 63] [man *382convicted of battery for fraudulently concealing venereal disease and infecting wife]; see Prosser, supra, § 18, p. 105.)

These old cases lend support to allowing the within action, in spite of the language in each case extolling the virtuous character of the woman involved.

We do not assess the wisdom nor predict the future course in the retreat from the double standard of morality for men and women in sexual matters. We do not think, however, at this stage of social mores, that it is relevant to judge appellant’s action on the basis of morality.

IX. Violation of Fiduciary Obligation

Appellant and respondent differ markedly in their assessment of the impact of the attorney-client relationship in the case before us. Appellant contends that a fiduciary obligation extends to any type of conduct by which an attorney seeks to benefit at the client’s expense. Respondent replies that no legal authority imposes on an attorney the burden of a fiduciary obligation with respect to his or her personal relations with a client. The parties have cited no case directly on point, and we can find none.

It is evident, however, that the lawyer-client relationship affects the proof of appellant’s cause of action at trial, rather than the sufficiency of the pleadings. Because of the importance of the issue, we offer the following comments for the guidance of the trial court in further proceedings.

“[F]iduciary” and “confidential” have been used synonymously to describe “ ‘. . . any relation existing between parties to a transaction wherein one of the parties is in duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of the other party. Such a relation ordinarily arises where a confidence is reposed by one person in the integrity of another, and in such a relation the party in whom the confidence is reposed, if he [or she] voluntarily accepts or assumes to accept the confidence, can take no advantage from his [or her] acts relating to the interest of the other party without the latter’s knowledge or consent. . . .’” (Herbert v. Lankershim (1937) 9 Cal.2d 409, 483 [71 P.2d 220]; Bacon v. Soule (1912) 19 Cal.App. 428, 434 [126 P. 384].) Technically, a fiduciary relationship is a recognized legal relationship such as guardian and ward, trustee and beneficiary, principal and agent, or attorney and client (see Frankel, Fiduciary Law (1983) 71 Cal.L.Rev. 795), whereas a “confidential relationship” may be founded on a moral, social, domestic, or merely personal relationship as well as on a legal relationship. (See Stevens v. Marco (1956) 147 Cal.App.2d 357, 374 [305 P.2d 669]; Bolander v. Thompson (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 444, 447 *383[134 P.2d 924]; Robbins v. Law (1920) 48 Cal.App. 555, 561 [192 P. 118].) The essence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship is that the parties do not deal on equal terms, because the person in whom trust and confidence is reposed and who accepts that trust and confidence is in a superior position to exert unique influence over the dependent party.

Our Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he relation between attorney and client is a fiduciary relation of the very highest character, and binds the attorney to most conscientious fidelity . . . .” (Cox v. Delmas (1893) 99 Cal. 104, 123 [28 P. 687]; see also Rader v. Thrasher (1962) 57 Cal.2d 244, 250 [18 Cal.Rptr. 736, 368 P.2d 360]; Sanguinetti v. Rossen (1906) 12 Cal.App. 623, 630 [107 P. 560]; 1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970) Attorneys, §§ 47-54, pp. 55-62.) Further, the court has admonished that “[a] member of the State Bar should not under any circumstances attempt to deceive another person, ...” (Cutler v. State Bar (1969) 71 Cal.2d 241, 252 [59 Cal.Rptr. 425, 428 P.2d 289]; McKinney v. State Bar (1964) 62 Cal.2d 194, 196 [41 Cal.Rptr. 665, 397 P.2d 425]; cf. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6106.) Numerous cases have applied these basic principles where an attorney in breaching the fiduciary obligation has gained financial advantage. (See, e.g., Cutler v. State Bar, supra, at p. 251; Gold v. Greenwald (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 296, 309-310 [55 Cal.Rptr. 660]; Clark v. Millsap (1926) 197 Cal. 765, 783, 786 [242 P. 918].) We can find no valid reason to restrict these principles to actions involving financial claims of a client and not to apply them to actions in which the client alleges physical damage resulting from a violation of the attorney’s fiduciary obligation.

Generally, the existence of a confidential relationship is a question of fact for the jury or the trial court. (Rieger v. Rich (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 651, 664 [329 P.2d 770]; Wilson v. Sampson (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 453, 459 [205 P.2d 753]; Estate of Llewellyn (1948) 83 Cal.App.2d 534, 562 [189 P.2d 822, 191 P.2d 419]; Wilson v. Zorb (1936) 15 Cal.App.2d 526, 532 [59 P.2d 593]; see 7 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Wills and Probate, § 112, p. 5626.) Where a legally recognized fiduciary relationship exists, however, the law infers a confidential relationship, i.e., it becomes a question of law for the court. (Rader v. Thrasher, supra, 57 Cal.2d 244, 250; Sime v. Malouf (1949) 95 Cal.App.2d 82, 98 [212 P.2d 946, 213 P.2d 788].) If the fact finder determines that a confidential relationship exists or the court determines as a matter of law that a fiduciary relationship exists, it is presumed that the one in whom trust and confidence is reposed has exerted undue influence. (Rader v. Thrasher, supra, 57 Cal.2d 244, 250; Roeder v. Roeder (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 572, 580 [258 P.2d 581].) Because a presumption is no longer independent evidence, the effect of the presumption of undue influence is to shift the burden of proof to the fiduciary. (Evid. Code, § 600, subd. (a); 1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, *384Attorneys, supra, § 51, p. 60.) The undue influence in the case before us is, of course, relevant on the issue of consent in appellant’s cause of action for battery and on the issue of justifiable reliance in her cause of action for misrepresentation.

Nevertheless, the unique facts in the case before us compel a more cautious approach in imposing on respondent, as a matter of law, the highest fiduciary standard in all his relations with appellant, social as well as legal. The existence of a confidential relationship between appellant and respondent is more properly a question of fact for the jury, or court, who can better assess whether the legal relationship was dominant or whether the parties functioned on a more equal basis in their personal relations. Thus, appellant would have the burden of proving the existence of a confidential relationship. If such a relationship were established, respondent would then have the burden of proving that consent was informed and freely given in the battery cause of action, or, in the alternative, that her reliance was unjustified in the misrepresentation cause of action. To hold otherwise would have a chilling and far-reaching effect on any personal relations between an attorney and his or her clients. The possibility of a factual determination of a confidential relationship should be a sufficient warning to monitor the profession in personal or social relations with clients.

We decline to address another issue indirectly raised by appellant—one of first impression in California, at least as far as statutes, cases, and rules are concerned. She asserts that it is a breach of ethics for an attorney, particularly in a family law context, to induce a client to have sexual relations during the course of the representation, and she points out that other professions have imposed discipline on a member for sexual misconduct with a patient. (See, e.g., Dresser v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 506 [181 Cal.Rptr. 797]; Cooper v. Board of Medical Examiners (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 931 [123 Cal.Rptr. 563].)

We think this question is more properly directed to the State Bar of California, which so far has not publicly addressed the issue.11

*385 Conclusion

In summary, the facts alleged in appellant’s cross-complaint state causes of action for battery and deceit. Her causes of action are not barred by Civil Code section 43.5, nor by the holding in Stephen K. v. Roni L., supra, 105 Cal.App.3d 640, or the public policy considerations underlying that decision. Although the constitutional right to privacy normally shields sexual relations from judicial scrutiny, it does not do so where the right to privacy is used as a shield from liability at the expense of the other party. No California statute or decision bars appellant’s causes of action, and decisions of other states support their viability by analogy.

Disposition

The judgment is reversed. The Municipal Court for the Napa-St. Helena Judicial District, County of Napa, State of California, is ordered to retransfer respondent’s action to the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Napa, for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.

Feinberg, J., concurred.

SCOTT, Acting P. J.

I respectfully dissent. The cause of action appellant attempts to allege falls squarely within the prohibition of Civil Code section 43.5 which provides that “No cause of action arises for . . . [1] (c) Seduction of a person over the age of legal consent.”

*386The Legislature in abolishing the seduction cause of action in 1939 labeled the antiheart balm statute as “Wrongs not actionable.” Clearly the majority’s assertion that “for every wrong there is a remedy” doesn’t apply in the instant case.

The majority attempts to characterize appellant’s cause of action as a battery or an action for deceit. But in fact, appellant was allegedly seduced by respondent’s false representation of infertility. The gravamen of appellant’s cause of action is the seduction, that is the act of sexual intercourse induced by appellant’s false representations. The injury sustained as a result of the alleged seduction was the ectopic pregnancy and damages that flowed therefrom. Clearly if there can be no cause of action for seduction, there can be no damages for the consequences thereof.

In rejecting respondent’s contention that appellant’s action is barred by Civil Code section 43.5, subdivision (c), the majority argues that this is not a seduction action because “appellant complains not because her virtue was violated . . . but because the sexual act . . . led to an ectopic pregnancy as a result of respondent’s misrepresentation.” I find no support for the contention that the only damage from a seduction is loss of virtue. Surely a woman can suffer mentally and physically from an unwanted pregnancy whether it results in a live birth or is sooner terminated. All we are talking about is the damage that flows from the seduction.

I agree with the court in Stephen K. v. Roni L. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 640 at pages 644 and 645 [164 Cal.Rptr. 618] where it states: “Despite [the] legalism [of plaintiff’s claim], it is nothing more than asking the court to supervise the promises made between two consenting adults as to the circumstances of their private sexual conduct. To do so would encourage unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters affecting the individual’s right of privacy.” Should we grant appellant here a cause of action, we cannot logically foreclose a cause of action to a woman who carries the child to a live birth, or one who has a miscarriage. The possibilities are limitless. The courts should stay out of the bedroom. I would affirm the judgment.

Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 29, 1983. Richardson, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

MOORE, Chief Justice.

The primary issue presented here is whether an owner may protect personal property in an unoccupied boarded-up farm house against trespassers and thieves by a spring gun capable of inflicting death or serious injury.

We are not here concerned with a man’s right to protect his home and members of his family. Defendants’ home was several miles from the scene of the incident to which we refer infra.

*658Plaintiffs action is for damages resulting from serious injury caused by a shot from a 20-gauge spring shotgun set by defendants in a bedroom of an old farm house which had been uninhabited for several years. Plaintiff and his companion, Marvin McDonough, had broken and entered the house to find and steal old bottles and dated fruit jars which they considered antiques.

At defendants’ request plaintiff’s action was tried to a jury consisting of residents of the community where defendants’ property was located. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff and against defendants for $20,000 actual and $10,000 punitive damages.

After careful consideration of defendants’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for new trial, the experienced and capable trial judge overruled them and entered judgment on the verdict. Thus we have this appeal by defendants.

I. In this action our review of the record as made by the parties in the lower court is for the correction of errors at law. We do not review actions at law de novo. Rule 334, Rules of Civil Procedure. Findings of fact by the jury are binding upon this court if supported by substantial evidence. Rule 344(f), par. 1, R.C.P.

II. Most of the facts are not disputed. In 1957 defendant Bertha L. Briney inherited her parents’ farm land in Mahaska and Monroe Counties. Included was an 80-acre tract in southwest Mahaska County where her grandparents and parents had lived. No one occupied the house thereafter. Her husband, Edward, attempted to care for the land. He kept no farm machinery thereon. The outbuildings became dilapidated.

For about 10 years, 1957 to 1967, there occurred a series of trespassing and housebreaking events with loss of some household items, the breaking of windows and “messing up of the property in general”. The latest occurred June 8, 1967, prior to the event on July 16, 1967 herein involved.

Defendants through the years boarded up the windows and doors in an attempt to stop the intrusions. They had posted “no trespass” signs on the land several years before 1967. The nearest one was 35 feet from the house. On June 11, 1967 defendants set “a shotgun trap” in the north bedroom. After Mr. Briney cleaned and oiled his 20-gauge shotgun, the power of which he was well aware, defendants took it to the old house where they secured it to an iron bed with the barrel pointed at the bedroom door. It was rigged with wire from the doorknob to the gun’s trigger so it would fire when the door was opened. Briney first pointed the gun so an intruder would be hit in the stomach but at Mrs Briney’s suggestion it was lowered to hit the legs. He admitted he did so “because I was mad and tired of being tormented” but “he did not intend to injure anyone”. He gave no explanation of why he used a loaded shell and set it to hit a person already in the house. Tin was nailed over the bedroom window. The spring gun could not be seen from the outside. No warning of its presence was posted.

Plaintiff lived with his wife and worked regularly as a gasoline station attendant in Eddyville, seven miles from the old house. He had observed it for several years while hunting in the area and considered it as being abandoned. He knew it had long been uninhabited. In 1967 the area around the house was covered with high weeds. Prior to July 16, 1967 plaintiff and McDonough had been to the premises and found several old bottles and fruit jars which they took and added to their collection of antiques. On the latter date about 9:30 p. m. they made a second trip to the Briney property. They entered the old house by removing a board from a porch window which was without glass. While McDonough was looking around the kitchen area plaintiff went to another part of the house. As he started to open the north bedroom door the shotgun went off striking him in the right leg above the ankle bone. Much of his leg, including part of the tibia, was blown away. Only by Mc*659Donough’s assistance was plaintiff able to get out of the house and after crawling some distance was put in his vehicle and rushed to a doctor and then to a hospital. He remained in the hospital 40 days.

Plaintiff’s doctor testified he seriously considered amputation but eventually the healing process was successful. Some weeks after his release from the hospital plaintiff returned to work on crutches. He was required to keep the injured leg in a cast for approximately a year and wear a special brace for another year. He continued to suffer pain during this period.

There was undenied medical testimony plaintiff had a permanent deformity, a loss of tissue, and a shortening of the leg.

The record discloses plaintiff to trial time had incurred $710 medical expense, $2056.85 for hospital service, $61.80 for orthopedic service and $750 as loss of earnings. In addition thereto the trial court submitted to the jury the question of damages for pain and suffering and for future disability.

III. Plaintiff testified he knew he had no right to break and enter the house with intent to steal bottles and fruit jars therefrom. He further testified he had entered a plea of guilty to larceny in the nighttime of property of less than $20 value from a private building. He stated he had been fined $50 and costs and paroled during good behavior from a 60-day jail sentence. Other than minor traffic charges this was plaintiff’s first brush with the law. On this civil case appeal it is not our prerogative to review the disposition made of the criminal charge against him.

IV. The main thrust of defendants’ defense in the trial court and on this appeal is that “the law permits use of a spring gun in a dwelling or warehouse for the purpose of preventing the unlawful entry of a burglar or thief”. They repeated this contention in their exceptions to the trial court’s instructions 2, 5 and 6. They took no exception to the trial court’s statement of the issues or to other instructions.

In the statement of issues the trial court stated plaintiff and his companion committed a felony when they broke and entered defendants’ house. In instruction 2 the court referred to the early case history of the use of spring guns and stated under the law their use was prohibited except to prevent the commission of felonies of violence and where human life is in danger. The instruction included a statement breaking and entering is not a felony of violence.

Instruction 5 stated: “You are hereby instructed that one may use reasonable force in the protection of his property, but such right is subject to the qualification that one may not use such means of force as will take human life or inflict great bodily injury. Such is the rule even though the injured party is a trespasser and is in violation of the law himself.”

Instruction 6 stated: “An owner of premises is prohibited from willfully or intentionally injuring a trespasser by means of force that either takes life or inflicts great bodily injury; and therefore a person owning a premise is prohibited from setting out ‘spring guns’ and like dangerous devices which will likely take life or inflict great bodily injury, for the purpose of harming trespassers. The fact that the trespasser may be acting in violation of the law does not change the rule. The only time when such conduct of setting a ‘spring gun’ or a like dangerous device is justified would be when the trespasser was committing a felony of violence or a felony punishable by death, or where the trespasser was endangering human life by his act.”

Instruction 7, to which defendants made no objection or exception, stated: “To entitle the plaintiff to recover for compensatory damages, the burden of proof is upon him to establish by a preponderance of the evidence each and all of the following propositions:

“1. That defendants erected a shotgun trap in a vacant house on land owned by de*660fendant, Bertha L. Briney, on or about June 11, 1967, which fact was known only by them, to protect household goods from trespassers and thieves.

“2. That the force used by defendants was in excess of that force reasonably necessary and which persons are entitled to use in the protection of their property.

“3. That plaintiff was injured and damaged and the amount thereof.

“4. That plaintiff’s injuries and damages resulted directly from the discharge of the shotgun trap which was set and used by defendants.”

The overwhelming weight of authority, both textbook and case law, supports the trial court’s statement of the applicable principles of law.

Prosser on Torts, Third Edition, pages 116-118, states:

“...the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property, it is the accepted rule that there is no privilege to use any force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury to repel the threat to land or chattels, unless there is also such a threat to the defendant’s personal safety as to justify a self-defense...spring guns and other man-killing devices are not justifiable against a mere trespasser, or even a petty thief. They are privileged only against those upon whom the landowner, if he were present in person would be free to inflict injury of the same kind.”

Restatement of Torts, section 85, page 180, states: “The value of human life and limb, not only to the individual concerned but also to society, so outweighs the interest of a possessor of land in excluding from it those whom he is not willing to admit thereto that a possessor of land has, as is stated in § 79, no privilege to use force intended or likely to cause death or serious harm against another whom the possessor sees about to enter his premises or meddle with his chattel, unless the intrusion threatens death or serious bodily harm to the occupiers or users of the premises. A posessor of land cannot do indirectly and by a mechanical device that which, were he present, he could not do immediately and in person. Therefore, he cannot gain a privilege to install, for the purpose of protecting his land from intrusions harmless to the lives and limbs of the occupiers or users of it, a mechanical device whose only purpose is to inflict death or serious harm upon such as may intrude, by giving notice of his intention to inflict, by mechanical means and indirectly, harm which he could not, even after request, inflict directly were he present.”

In Volume 2, Harper and James, The Law of Torts, section 27.3, pages 1440, 1441, this is found: “The possessor of land may not arrange his premises intentionally so as to cause death or serious bodily harm to a trespasser. The possessor may of course take some steps to repel a trespass. If he is present he may use force to do so, but only that amount which is reasonably necessary to effect the repulse. Moreover if the trespass threatens harm to property only — even a theft of property — the possessor would not be privileged to use deadly force, he may not arrange his premises so that such force will be inflicted by mechanical means. If he does, he will be liable even to a thief who is injured by such device.”

Similar statements are found in 38 Am. Jur., Negligence, section 114, pages 776, 777, and 65 C.J.S. Negligence § 62(23), pages 678, 679; Anno. 44 A.L.R.2d 383, entitled “Trap to protect property”.

In Hooker v. Miller, 37 Iowa 613, we held defendant vineyard owner liable for damages resulting from a spring gun shot although plaintiff was a trespasser and there to steal grapes. At pages 614, 615, this statement is made: “This court has held that a mere trespass against property other than a dwelling is not a sufficient justification to authorize the use of a dead*661ly weapon by the owner in its defense; and that if death results in such a case it will be murder, though the killing be actually necessary to prevent the trespass. The State v. Vance, 17 Iowa 138.” At page 617 this court said: “[T]respassers and other inconsiderable violators of the law are not to be visited by barbarous punishments or prevented by inhuman inflictions of bodily injuries.”

The facts in Allison v. Fiscus, 156 Ohio 120, 100 N.E.2d 237, 44 A.L.R.2d 369, decided in 1951, are very similar to the case at bar. There plaintiff’s right to damages was recognized for injuries received when he feloniously broke a door latch and started to enter defendant’s warehouse with intent to steal. As he entered a trap of two sticks of dynamite buried under the doorway by defendant owner was set off and plaintiff seriously injured. The court held the question whether a particular trap was justified as a use of reasonable and necessary force against a trespasser engaged in the commission of a felony should have been submitted to the jury. The Ohio Supreme Court recognized plaintiff’s right to recover punitive or exemplary damages in addition to compensatory damages.

In Starkey v. Dameron, 96 Colo. 459, 45 P.2d 172, plaintiff was allowed to recover compensatory and punitive damages for injuries received from a spring gun which defendant filling station operator had concealed in an automatic gasoline pump as protection against thieves.

In Wilder v. Gardner, 39 Ga.App. 608, 147 S.E. 911, judgment for plaintiff for injuries received from a spring gun which defendant had set, the court said: “A person in control of premises may be responsible even to a trespasser for injuries caused by pitfalls, mantraps, or other like contrivances so dangerous in character as to imply a disregard of consequences or a willingness to inflict injury.”

In Phelps v. Hamlett, Tex.Civ.App., 207 S.W. 425, defendant rigged a bomb inside his outdoor theater so that if anyone came through the door the bomb would explode. The court reversed plaintiff’s recovery because of an incorrect instruction but at page 426 said: “While the law authorizes an owner to protect his property by such reasonable means as he may find to be necessary, yet considerations of humanity preclude him from setting out, even on his own property, traps and devices dangerous to the life and limb of those whose appearance and presence may be reasonably anticipated, even though they may be trespassers.”

In United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt, 258 U.S. 268, 275, 42 S.Ct. 299, 66 L.Ed. 615, 617, the court states: “The liability for spring guns and mantraps arises from the fact that the defendant has * * * expected the trespasser and prepared an injury that is no more justified than if he had held the gun and fired it.”

In addition to civil liability many jurisdictions hold a land owner criminally liable for serious injuries or homicide caused by spring guns or other set devices. See State v. Childers, 133 Ohio 508, 14 N.E.2d 767 (melon thief shot by spring gun); Pierce v. Commonwealth, 135 Va. 635, 115 S.E. 686 (policeman killed by spring gun when he opened unlocked front door of defendant’s shoe repair shop); State v. Marfaudille, 48 Wash. 117, 92 P. 939 (murder conviction for death from spring gun set in a trunk); State v. Beckham, 306 Mo. 566, 267 S.W. 817 (boy killed by spring gun attached to window of defendant’s chili stand); State v. Green, 118 S.C. 279, 110 S.E. 145, 19 A.L.R. 1431 (intruder shot by spring gun when he broke and entered vacant house. Manslaughter conviction of owner-affirmed); State v. Barr, 11 Wash. 481, 39 P. 1080 (murder conviction affirmed for death of an intruder into a boarded up cabin in which owner had set a spring gun).

In Wisconsin, Oregon and England the use of spring guns and similar devices is specifically made unlawful by statute. 44 A.L.R., section 3, pages 386, 388.

*662The legal principles stated by the trial court in instructions 2, 5 and 6 are well established and supported by the authorities cited and quoted supra. There is no merit in defendants’ objections and exceptions thereto. Defendants’ various motions based on the same reasons stated in exceptions to instructions were properly overruled.

V. Plaintiff’s claim and the jury’s allowance of punitive damages, under the trial court’s instructions relating thereto, were not at any time or in any manner challenged by defendants in the trial court as not allowable. We therefore are not presented with the problem of whether the $10,000 award should be allowed to stand.

We express no opinion as to whether punitive damages are allowable in this type of case. If defendants’ attorneys wanted that issue decided it was their duty to raise it in the trial court.

The rule is well established that we will not consider a contention not raised in the trial court. In other words we are a court of review and will not consider a contention raised for the first time in this court. Ke-Wash Company v. Stauffer Chemical Company, Iowa, 177 N.W.2d 5, 9; In re Adoption of Moriarty, 260 Iowa 1279, 1288, 152 N.W.2d 218, 223; Verschoor v. Miller, 259 Iowa 170, 176, 143 N.W.2d 385, 389; Mundy v. Olds, 254 Iowa 1095, 1100, 120 N.W.2d 469, 472; Bryan v. Iowa State Highway Commission, 251 Iowa 1093, 1096, 104 N.W.2d 562, 563, and citations.

In our most recent reference to the rule we say in Cole v. City of Osceola, Iowa, 179 N.W.2d 524, 527: “Of course, questions not presented to and not passed upon by the trial court cannot be raised or reviewed on appeal.”

Under our law punitive damages are not allowed as a matter of right. Sebastian v. Wood, 246 Iowa 94, 100, 101, 66 N.W.2d 841, 844. When malice is shown or when a defendant acted with wanton and reckless disregard of the rights of others, punitive damages may be allowed as punishment to the defendant and as a deterrent to others. Although not meant to compensate a plaintiff, the result is to increase his recovery. He is the fortuitous beneficiary of such an award simply because there is no one else to receive it.

The jury’s findings of fact including a finding defendants acted with malice and with wanton and reckless disregard, as required for an allowance of punitive or exemplary damages, are supported by substantial evidence. We are bound thereby.

This opinion is not to be taken or construed as authority that the allowance of punitive damages is or is not proper under circumstances such as exist here. We hold only that question of law not having been properly raised cannot in this case be resolved.

Study and careful consideration of defendants’ contentions on appeal reveal no reversible error.

Affirmed.

All Justices concur except LARSON, J., who dissents.

LARSON, Justice.

I respectfully dissent, first, because the majority wrongfully assumes that by installing a spring gun in the bedroom of their unoccupied house the defendants intended to shoot any intruder who attempted to enter the room. Under the record presented here, that was a fact question. Unless it is held that these property owners are liable for any injury to a intruder from such a device regardless of the intent with which it is installed, liability under these pleadings must rest upon two definite issues of fact, i. e., did the defendants intend to shoot the invader, and if so, did they employ unnecessary and unreasonable force against him?

It is my feeling that the majority oversimplifies the impact of this case on the law, not only in this but other jurisdictions, *663and that it has not thought through all the ramifications of this holding.

There being no statutory provisions governing the right of an owner to defend his property by the use of a spring gun or other like device, or of a criminal invader to recover punitive damages when injured by such an instrumentality while breaking into the building of another, our interest and attention are directed to what should be the court determination of public policy in these matters. On both issues we are faced with a case of first impression. We should accept the task and clearly establish the law in this jurisdiction hereafter. I would hold there is no absolute liability for injury to a criminal intruder by setting up such a device on his property, and unless done with an intent to kill or seriously injure the intruder, I would absolve the owner from liability other than for negligence. I would also hold the court had no jurisdiction to allow punitive damages when the intruder was engaged in a serious criminal offense such as breaking and entering with intent to steal.

It appears to me that the learned trial court was and the majority is now confused as to the basis of liability under the circumstances revealed. Certainly, the trial court’s instructions did nothing to clarify the law in this jurisdiction for the jury. Timely objections to Instructions Nos. 2, S and 6 were made by the defendants, and thereafter the court should have been aware of the questions of liability left unresolved, i. e., whether in this jurisdiction we by judicial declaration bar the use in an unoccupied building of spring guns or other devices capable of inflicting serious injury or death on an intruder regardless of the intent with which they are installed, or whether such an intent is a vital element which must be proven in order to establish liability for an injury inflicted upon a criminal invader.

Although the court told the jury the plaintiff had the burden to prove “That the force used by defendants was in excess of that force reasonably necessary and which persons are entitled to use in the protection of their property”, it utterly failed to tell the jury it could find the installation was not made with the intent or purpose of striking or injuring the plaintiff. There was considerable evidence to that effect. As I shall point out, both defendants stated the installation was made for the purpose of scaring or frightening away any intruder, not to seriously injure him. It may be that the evidence would support a finding of an intent to injure the intruder, but obviously that important issue was never adequately or clearly submitted to the jury.

Unless, then, we hold for the first time that liability for death or injury in such cases is absolute, the matter should be remanded for a jury determination of defendant’s intent in installing the device under instructions usually given to a jury on the issue of intent.

I personally have no objection to this court’s determination of the public policy of this state in such a case to ban the use of such devices in all instances where there is no intruder threat to human life or safety, but I do say we have never done so except in the case of a mere trespasser in a vineyard. Hooker v. Miller, 37 Iowa 613 (1873). To that extent, then, this is a case of first impression, and in any opinion we should make the law in this jurisdiction crystal clear. Although the legislature could pronounce this policy, as it has in some states, since we have entered this area of the law by the Hooker decision, I believe it proper for us to declare the applicable law in cases such as this for the guidance of the bench and bar hereafter. The majority opinion utterly fails in this regard. It fails to recognize the problem where such a device is installed in a building housing valuable property to ward off criminal intruders, and to clearly place the burden necessary to establish liability.

My second reason for this dissent is the allowance of an award of punitive damages herein. Plaintiff claimed a remedy which *664our law does not allow, and the trial court should not have submitted that issue to the jury. Like the law establishing liability for installing a spring gun or other similar device, the law recognizing and allowing punitive or exemplary damages is court-made law, not statutory law. As to the property owner’s liability for exemplary damages where one is engaged in a serious criminal offense at the time of his injury, we also have a case of first impression. We have never extended this right to such a claimant, and I would not do so now. Unless we do, or there is a compelling reason or authority for such a right, which I fail to find, the trial court erred in submitting that issue to the jury. Like the case where a judgment is entered without jurisdiction of the subject matter, I would hold the award of $10,000 to plaintiff is void.

I do not wish to criticize, but believe the factual statement of the majority fails to give a true perspective of the relative facts and issues to be considered.

Plaintiff’s petition at law asking damages alleged willful and malicious setting of a trap or device for the purpose of killing or inflicting great bodily harm upon any trespasser on defendants’ property. We are, therefore, factually concerned with how such force may be properly applied by the property owner and whether his intent is relevant to liability. Negligent installation of a dangerous device to frighten and ward off an intruder or thief is not alleged, so unless the proof submitted was sufficient to establish a willful setting of the trap with a purpose of killing or seriously injuring the intruder, no recovery could be had. If the evidence submitted was such that a jury could find defendants had willfully set the spring gun with a purpose to seriously injure the plaintiff intruder, unless they were privileged under the law to set the gun under these circumstances, liability for the injury would follow.

From the record we learn that plaintiff and a companion made a second trip to a furnished but uninhabited house on defendants’ farmland in Mahaska County on the night of July 16, 1967. They tore a plank from a porch window, entered the house with an intent to steal articles therein, and in search of desired articles plaintiff came to a closed bedroom door where he removed a chair braced under the door knob and pulled the door toward him. This action triggered a single shot 20-gauge shotgun which defendants had wired to the bottom of a bed. The blast went through the door and struck plaintiff two or three inches above the right ankle.

The Mahaska County Grand Jury issued a true bill charging plaintiff with breaking and entering in the nighttime, but the county attorney accepted a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of larceny in the nighttime of property of a value of less than $20 and did not press the greater charge.

At the trial of this case Mr. Briney, one of the defendants, testified that the house where plaintiff was injured had been the home of Mrs. Briney’s parents. He said the furniture and other possessions left there were of considerable value and they had tried to preserve them and enjoy them for frequent visits by Mrs. Briney. It appeared this unoccupied house had been broken into repeatedly during the past ten years and, as a result, Mr. Briney said “things were pretty well torn up, a lot of things taken.” To prevent these intrusions the Brineys nailed the doors and some windows shut and boarded up others. Prior to this time Mr. Briney testified he had locked the doors, posted seven no trespassing signs on the premises, and complained to the sheriffs of two counties on numerous occasions. Mr. Briney further testified that when all these efforts were futile and the vandalism continued, he placed a 20-guage shotgun in a bedroom and wired it so that it would shoot downward and toward the door if anyone opened it. He said he first aimed it straight at the door but later, at his wife’s suggestion, reconsidered the aim and pointed the gun down in a way he thought would only scare *665someone if it were discharged. On cross-examination he admitted that he did not want anyone to know it was there in order to preserve the element of surprise.

Plaintiff testified he knew the house was unoccupied and admitted breaking into it in the nighttime without lawful reason or excuse. He claimed he and his companion were seeking old bottles and dated fruit jars. He also admitted breaking in on one prior occasion and stated the reason for the return visit was that “we decided we would go out to this place again and see if there was something we missed while we was out there the first time.” An old organ fascinated plaintiff. Arriving this second time, they found that the window by which they had entered before was now a “solid mass of boards” and walked around the house until they found the porch window which offered less resistance. Plaintiff said they crawled through this window. While searching the house he came to the bedroom door and pulled it open, thus triggering the gun that delivered a charge which struck him in the leg.

Plaintiff’s doctor testified that he treated the shotgun wound on the night it was sustained and for some period thereafter. The healing process was successful and plaintiff was released after 40 days in the hospital. There was medical testimony that plaintiff had a permanent deformity, a loss of tissue, and a shortening of the leg.

That plaintiff suffered a grievous wound is not denied, and that it constituted a serious bodily injury cannot be contradicted.

As previously indicated, this appeal presents two vital questions which are as novel as they are difficult. They are, (1) is the owner of a building in which are kept household furniture, appliances, and valuables, but not occupied by a person or persons, liable in damages to an intruder who in the nighttime broke into and entered the building with the intent to steal and was shot and seriously injured by a spring gun allegedly set by the owner to frighten in-traders from his property, and (2) if he is liable for compensatory damages, is this a proper case for the allowance of exemplary or punitive damages?

The trial court overruled all objections to the instructions and denied defendants’ motion for a new trial. Thus, the first question to be resolved is the status of the law in this jurisdiction as to the means of force a property owner is privileged to use to repel (1) a mere trespasser, (2) a criminal invader, thief or burglar, where he presents no threat to human life or safety, and (3) an intruder or criminal breaking and entering a dwelling which poses a threat to human life and safety. Overlooked by the majority is the vital problem relating to the relevancy and importance of the owner’s intent in placing the device.

I have been unable to find a case exactly like the case at bar, although there have been many cases which consider liability to a mere trespasser for injuries incurred by a spring gun or other dangerous instruments set to protect against intrusion and theft. True, some of these cases seem to turn on the negligence of the party setting the trap and an absence of adequate warning thereof, but most of them involve an alleged intentional tort. It is also true some hold as a matter of public policy there is liability for any injury following the setting of a device which is intended to kill or inflict great bodily injury on one coming on the owner’s property without permission, unless the invader poses a threat to human life, and this is so even though there is no statutory prohibition against the setting of spring guns in the jurisdiction.

Since our decision in Hooker v. Miller, supra, we have recognized in this state the doctrine that the owner of a premise is liable in damages to a mere trespasser coming upon his property for any injury occasioned by the unsafe condition of the property which the owner has intentionally permitted to exist, such as installed spring guns, unless adequate warning is given thereof. In *666Hooker, which involved stealing grapes from a vineyard, we held a property owner had no right to resist such a trespass by means which may kill or inflict great bodily injury to the trespasser. But it does appear therein that we recognized some distinction between a mere trespass against property and a trespass involving a serious crime or involving a dwelling. Except when the trespass involves a serious crime, a crime posing a threat to human life, it may be argued that the law in this jurisdiction should limit the right of one to protect his property, that he does not have a privilege to resist a mere trespass by using a spring gun or other device which poses a threat to life.

However, left unsettled by this and other court pronouncements is the means which may be used to repel, prevent, or apprehend a trespasser engaged in a more serious criminal offense. True, there is a line of cases which seem to apply the same rule to all criminal trespasses except those involving arson, rape, assault, or other acts of violence against persons residing on the property invaded. State v. Vance, 17 Iowa 138 (1864); State v. Plumlee, 177 La. 687, 149 So. 425 (1933); Pierce v. Commonwealth, 135 Va. 635, 115 S.E. 686 (Virginia, 1923); Simpson v. State, 59 Ala. 1, 31 Am.Rep. 1 (1877); State v. Barr, 11 Wash. 481, 39 P. 1080 (1895) ; Starkey v. Dameron, 96 Colo. 459, 21 P.2d 1112 (1933); State v. Beckham, 306 Mo. 566, 267 S.W. 817 (1924); Bird v. Holbrook, 4 Bingham’s Reports 628 (England, 1828). Also see annotation, 44 A.L.R.2d 391, § 5, and citations. There are others which at least infer that any serious law violation by the trespasser might permit the reasonable use of dangerous instrumentalities to repel the intruder and prevent loss or damage to one’s valuable property. Scheuermann v. Scharfenberg, 163 Ala. 337, 50 So. 335; Marquis v. Benfer, Tex.Civ.App., 298 S.W.2d 601 (Texas 1956); Grant v. Hass, 31 Tex.Civ.App. 688, 75 S.W. 342 (1903); Gray v. Combs, 7 J.J. Marshall 478 (Ky., 1832), 23 Am.Dec. 431; Ilott v. Wilkes, 3 B. & A. 304 (1820 K.B.).

Also see the following articles on this subject: 68 Yale Law Journal 633, Duties to Trespassers: A Comparative Survey and Revaluation; 35 Yale Law Journal 525, The Privilege to Protect Property by Dangerous Barriers and Mechanical Devices; annotation, 44 A.L.R.2d 383, Use of Set Gun, Trap, or Similar Device on Defendant’s Own Property.

Most of these discussions center around what should be public policy regarding a property owner’s right to use a dangerous weapon or instrumentality to protect his premises from intruders or trespassers, and his duty to protect the trespasser from serious injury while upon his premises.

Some states, including Wisconsin, have statutes which announce the jurisdiction’s public policy. Often they prohibit the use of spring guns or such devices to protect real and personal property, and of course in those instances a property owner, regardless of his intent or purpose, has no right to make use of them and is liable to anyone injured thereby. Since there has been no such statutory prohibition or direct judicial pronouncement to that effect prior to this time in this state, it could not be said as a matter of law that the mere placing of a spring gun in a building on one’s premises is unlawful. Much depends upon its placement and purpose. Whether an owner exceeds his privilege to reasonably defend his property by such an installation, and whether liability is incurred in a given case, should therefore depend upon the circumstances revealed, the intent of the property owner, and his care in setting the device. In any event, I question whether it should be determined solely by the results of his act or its effect upon the intruder.

It appears there are cases and some authority which would relieve one setting a spring gun on his premises of any liability if adequate warning had been given an intruder and he ignores the warning. In all of these cases there is a question as to *667the intent of the property owner in setting the device. Intent, of course, may be determined from both direct and indirect evidence, and it is true the physical facts may be and often are sufficient to present a jury issue. I think they were here, but no clear instruction was given in this regard.

If, after proper instructions, the finder of fact determines that the gun was set with an intent and purpose to kill or inflict great bodily injury on an intruder, then and only then may it be said liability is established unless the property so protected is shown to be an occupied dwelling house. Of course, under this concept, if the finder of fact determines the gun set in an unoccupied house was intended to do no more than to frighten the intruder or sting him a bit, no liability would be incurred under such pleadings as are now presented. If such a concept of the law were adopted in Iowa, we would have here a question for the fact-finder or jury as to whether the gun was willfully and intentionally set so as to seriously injure the thief or merely scare him away.

I feel the better rule is that an owner of buildings housing valuable property may employ the use of spring guns or other devices intended to repel but not seriously injure an intruder who enters his secured premises with or without a criminal intent, but I do not advocate its general use, for there may also be liability for negligent installation of such a device. What I mean to say is that under such circumstances as we have here the issue as to whether the set was with an intent to seriously injure or kill an intruder is a question of fact that should be left to the jury under proper instructions, and that the mere setting of such a device with a resultant serious injury should not as a matter of law establish liability.

In the case of a mere trespass able authorities have reasoned that absolute liability may rightfully be fixed on the landowner for injuries to the trespasser because very little damage could be inflicted upon the property owner and the danger is great that a child or other innocent trespasser might be seriously injured by the device. In such matters they say no privilege to set up the device should be recognized by the courts regardless of the owner’s intent. I agree.

On the other hand, where the intruder may pose a danger to the inhabitants of a dwelling, the privilege of using such a device to repel has been recognized by most authorities, and the mere setting thereof in the dwelling has not been held to create liability for an injury as a matter of law. In such cases intent and the reasonableness of the force would seem relevant to liability.

Although I am aware of the often-repeated statement that personal rights are more important than property rights, where the owner has stored his valuables representing his life’s accumulations, his livelihood business, his tools and implements, and his treasured antiques as appears in the case at bar, and where the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding that the installation was intended only as a warning to ward off thieves and criminals, I can see no compelling reason why the use of such a device alone would create liability as a matter of law.

For cases considering the devices a property owner is or is not privileged to use to repel a mere trespasser, see Hooker v. Miller, supra, 37 Iowa 613 (trap gun set in orchard to repel); State v. Vance, supra, 17 Iowa 138 (1864); Phelps v. Hamlett, Tex.Civ.App., 207 S.W. 425 (1918) (bomb set in open air theater); State v. Plumlee, supra, 177 La. 687, 149 So. 425 (1933) (trap gun set in open barn) ; Starkey v. Dameron, supra, 96 Colo. 459, 21 P.2d 1112 (1933) (spring gun in outdoor automatic gas pump); State v. Childers, 133 Ohio St. 508, 14 N.E.2d 767 (1938) (trap gun in melon patch); Weis v. Allen, 147 Or. 670, 35 P.2d 478 (1934) (trap gun in junkyard); Johnson v. Patterson, 14 Conn. 1 (1840) *668(straying poultry poisoned); Bird v. Holbrook, supra, 4 Bingham’s Reports 628 (England, 1828) (spring gun in garden enclosed by wall of undisclosed height).

For cases apparently holding dangerous devices may be used to ward off and prevent a trespasser from breaking and entering into an inhabited dwelling, see State v. Vance, supra; Grant v. Hass, supra; Scheuermann v. Scharfenberg, supra; Simpson v. State, supra; United States v. Gilliam, 1 Hayw. & H. 109, 25 Fed.Cas. 1319, p. 1320, No. 15,205 a (D.C. 1882); State v. Childers, supra; Gramlich v. Wurst, 86 Pa. 74, 80 (1878).

Also, for cases considering the devices a property owner is privileged to use to repel an invader where there is no threat to human life or safety, see Allison v. Fiscus, 156 Ohio St. 120, 100 N.E.2d 237, 44 A.L.R.2d 369; State v. Barr, 11 Wash. 481, 39 P. 1080 (1895); State v. Childers, supra; Weis v. Allen, supra; Pierce v. Commonwealth, supra; Johnson v. Patterson, supra; Marquis v. Benfer, supra.

In Allison v. Fiscus, supra, at page 241 of 100 N.E.2d, it is said: “Assuredly, * * * the court had no right to hold as a matter of law that defendant was liable to plaintiff, as the defendant’s good faith in using the force which he did to protect his building and the good faith of his belief as to the nature of the force he was using were questions for the jury to determine under proper instructions.” (Emphasis supplied.)

In State v. Barr, supra, at page 1081 of 39 P., the court said: “ * * * whether or not what was done in a particular case was justified under the law must be a question of fact, or mixed law and fact, and not a pure question of law.”

In State v. Childers, supra, it is said at page 768 of 14 N.E.2d: “Of course the act in question must be done maliciously * * * and that fact must be proved and found by the jury to exist." (Emphasis supplied.)

Also see State v. Metcalfe, 203 Iowa 155, 212 N.W. 382, where this court discussed the force that a property owner may use to oppose an unlawful effort to carry away his goods, and held the essential issue in such matters which must be explained to the jury is not the nature of the weapon employed but whether the defendant employed only that degree of force to accomplish such purpose which a reasonable person would deem reasonably necessary under the circumstances as they appeared in good faith to the defendant.

Like the Ohio Supreme Court in Allison v. Fiscus, supra, I believe that the basis of liability, if any, in such a case should be either the intentional, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct of the owner in setting the device.

If this is not a desirable expression of policy in this jurisdiction, I suggest the body selected and best fitted to establish a different public policy would be the State Legislature.

The next question presented is, which view of the law set out above did the trial court take, the view that the mere setting of a spring gun or like device in defendants’ building created liability for the resulting injury, or the view that there must be a setting of the device with an intent to shoot, kill, or seriously injure one engaged in breaking and entering this house ? Appellants argue this was not made clear in the court’s instructions to the jury and, being material, is error. I agree.

They contend Instructions Nos. 2, 5 and 6, to which proper and timely exceptions were taken, are improper, that they were so inadequate and confusing as to constitute reversible error and required the trial court to grant their motion for a new trial.

Instruction No. 5 provides:

“You are hereby instructed that one may use reasonable force in the protection of his property, but such right is subject to the qualification that one may not use such means of force as will take human life *669or inflict great bodily injury. Such is the rule even though the injured party is a trespasser and is in violation of the law himself.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Instruction No. 6 provides:

“An owner of premises is prohibited from willfully or intentionally injuring a trespasser by means of force that either takes life or inflicts great bodily injury; and therefore a person owning a premise is prohibited from setting out ‘spring guns’ and like dangerous devices which will likely take life or inflict ¡great bodily injury, for the purpose of harming trespassers. The fact that the trespasser may be acting in violation of the law does not change the rule. The only time when such conduct of setting a ‘spring gun’ or a like dangerous device is justified would be when the trespasser was committing a felony of violence or a felony punishable by death, or where the trespasser was endangering human life by his act.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Specific objections were made to Instruction No. 2, inter alia, to the statement that in this jurisdiction the use of force which may take life or inflict serious bodily injury might be used was restricted to occupied dwellings or where specific statutes permitted its use; to the reference to an Iowa case wherein the subject related to a simple trespass in a vineyard where no breaking and entry of a building was involved, without pointing out the difference as to permissible force permitted to repel one entering the owner’s buildings with intent to ravish and steal valuable personal property; and to the error resulting when the court wrongfully directed the jury to find defendants’ acts were illegal by stating “that in so doing he violated the law and became liable for injuries sustained by the plaintiff.”

In other words, defendants contended that this instruction failed to tell the jury the extent of defendants’ rights to defend against burglary in buildings other than their dwelling, inferring they have no right to employ a device which is dangerous to life and limb, regardless of its intended purpose only to ward off or scare the intruder.

Defendants also specifically objected to Instruction No. 5 because it also limited the right or privilege of one to use dangerous devices in any way to protect his property, and made it applicable to cases where the invader was in violation of the law, without classifying his offense.

Instruction No. 6 was specifically objected to as not being a proper statement of the law, as being inadequate, confusing, and misleading to the jury in regard to the vital issues in this case, because it would not be possible for a jury to understand the court when it told the jurors an owner of premises is prohibited from willfully or intentionally injuring a trespasser by means of force that either takes life or inflicts great bodily injury, and then told them a person owning premises is prohibited from setting out spring guns and like dangerous devices which will “likely” take life or inflict great bodily injury, for the purpose of harming trespassers.

Appellants argue from these instructions the jury could conclude it must find any setting of a spring gun or such other device to protect his property from a burglar or other criminal invader made the owner absolutely liable for injuries suffered by the intruder, unless the building being so protected was a dwelling, regardless of the owner’s intent and purpose in setting the device in his building. On the other hand, in Instruction No. 6 the court refers to such a setting with the intent and purpose of killing or seriously injuring the intruder in order to make the owner liable for damages.

I too find these instructions are confusing. If the court was telling the jury, as appellants contend, that an owner of a premise may not set a spring gun to protect his property unless the trespasser’s act amounts to a felony of violence and *670endangers human life, the phrase used, “for the purpose of harming trespassers”, introduces the element of intent and would tend to confuse the jury as to the law on that issue. If the issue here was that such an intent was necessary to establish liability, the instruction was erroneous and confusing; otherwise the error was without prejudice.

I would, therefore, conclude there is merit in appellants’ contention that the law was not made clear to the jury as to whether the act of placing a spring gun on this premise was prohibited by law, or whether the act of placing such a device requires a finding of intention to shoot the intruder or cause him great bodily injury to establish liability. I cannot tell whether the jury found liability on the mere act of placing the gun as Mr. Briney did in this house or on the fact that he did so with the intent to seriously harm a trespasser.

In the case at bar, as I have pointed out, there is a sharp conflict in the evidence. The physical facts and certain admissions as to how the gun was aimed would tend to support a finding of intent to injure, while the direct testimony of both defendants was that the gun was placed so it would “hit the floor eventually” and that it was set “low so it couldn’t kill anybody.” Mr. Briney testified, “My purpose in setting up the gun was not to injure somebody. I thought more or less that the gun would be at a distance of where anyone would grab the door, it would scare them”, and in setting the angle of the gun to hit the lower part of the door, he said, “I didn’t think it would go through quite that hard.”

If the law in this jurisdiction permits, which I think it does, an explanation of the setting of a spring gun to repel invaders of certain private property, then the intent with which the set is made is a vital element in the liability issue.

In view of the failure to distinguish and clearly give the jury the basis upon which it should determine that liability issue, I would reverse and remand the entire case for a new trial.

As indicated, under these circumstances the trial court should not have submitted the punitive damage issue to the jury in this case. By Instruction No. 14 the learned trial judge wrongfully instructed the jury that the law of Iowa allows a jury in such a case to award exemplary damages if it' is found that the act complained of is wanton and reckless or where the defendants are guilty of malice. True, this instruction was in accordance with certain past pronouncements of this court and no objection was taken to the substance of the instruction, but defendants have always contended under these circumstances the court should not have submitted the question of exemplary damages to the jury. We have never extended the exemplary damage law to cover such cases and I maintain we should not do so now, directly or indirectly. Without such a pronouncement to that extent, or some legislation extending that right to a person engaged in a serious criminal offense at the time of his injury, I believe the trial court possessed no jurisdiction to permit the jury to pass on such a claim, even though no objections thereto were made by the defendants.

Although this subject has been considered and discussed in several Iowa cases, including Sebastian v. Wood, 246 Iowa 94, 66 N.W.2d 841, and citations, granting exemplary damages for injury due to alleged reckless driving, and Amos v. Prom, 115 F.Supp. 127, relating to alleged mental suffering and humiliation when denied admission to a public dance hall, none seem to consider whether punitive damages are permitted where the injured party was, as here, engaged in a criminal act such as breaking and entering, burglary, or other serious offense. Also see Morgan v. Muench, 181 Iowa 719, 156 N.W. 819, and Stricklen v. Pearson Construction Co., 185 Iowa 95, 169 N.W. 628, and citations in each.

*671Although I have found no authority to assist me in my view, I am convinced it is correct in principle and should be adopted in this jurisdiction. In so doing, I adhere to the rule recognized in Amos v. Prom, supra, at 137, et seq., where it is stated: “ * * * the principle that intentional wrongful action in disregard for the rights of others amounts to conduct to which the law will attach a penalty and deterrent by way of exemplary damages.” However, I would not extend this privilege to a case where the injured party’s conduct itself was criminal and extremely violative of good public behavior.

From a general review of the subject of exemplary or punitive damages beginning with Wilkes v. Wood (1763), Lofft 1, 98 English Rep. 489, 498, which stated such “Damages are designed not only as a satisfaction to the injured person, but likewise as a punishment to the guilty, to deter from any such proceeding for the future, * * * ”, I find that both in England and the United States the purpose of this law was to restrain arbitrary and outrageous vise of power. See 70 Harvard L.Rev. 517, 519 (1957), Exemplary Damages in the Law of Torts.

In Hawk v. Ridgway, 33 Ill. 473, 475 (1864), the Illinois court said, “Where the wrong is wanton, or it is willful, the jury are authorized to give an amount of damages beyond the actual injury sustained, as a punishment, and to preserve the public tranquillity.”

Some courts rationalize punitive damages on the basis that they provide an outlet for the injured party’s desire for revenge and thereby help keep the peace. Some others rationalize it as a punishment to defendant and to deter him and others from further antisocial conduct. It has also been said punitive damages are ordinarily a means of increasing the severity of the admonition inherent in the compensatory award. See 44 Harvard L.Rev. 1173 (1931).

A further study of this law indicates punitive damages have a direct relation to the criminal law. Historically, it was undoubtedly one of the functions of tort law to deter wrongful behavior. However, in modern times its priority has become that of compensating the victim of the injury. The business of punishing wrongdoers has increasingly become the exclusive purview of the criminal law. See Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, Vol. II, 2d Ed. (1898), § 1, pp. 449-462.

The award of punitive damages in modern tort law gives rise to considerable anomalies. Such damages, of course, go to the private purse of the individual plaintiff and may be classified a windfall as to him in excess of his actual losses due entirely to a social judgment about defendant’s conduct.

In properly applying this law Professor McCormick, in his treatise on damages found on pages 276 and 277 in McCormick on Damages (1935), said, “Perhaps the principal advantage is that it does tend to bring to punishment a type, of cases of oppressive conduct, such as slanders, assaults, minor oppressions, and cruelties, which are theoretically criminally punishable, but which in actual practice go unnoticed by prosecutors occupied with more serious crimes. * * * The self-interest of the plaintiff leads to the actual prosecution of the claim for punitive damages, where the same motive would often lead him to refrain from the trouble incident to appearing against the wrongdoer in criminal proceedings.”

So understood, punitive damages are an adjunct to the criminal law, yet one over which the criminal law has no control, and in the United Kingdom, the land of its birth, punitive damages are close to extinct. In Rookes v. Barnard, Appeal Cases (House of Lords, 1964) 1129, at 1221 et seq., the English court of last resort confined the award of punitive damages to a very narrow range of situations. It ruled in an intentional tort case that exemplary *672damages could be awarded only in cases (1) for oppressive arbitrary, or unconstitutional acts by government servants, (2) for defendant’s conduct which had been calculated by him to make a profit for himself which might well exceed the compensation payable to the injured party, and (3) where expressly authorized by statute.

In the case at bar the plaintiff was guilty of serious criminal conduct, which event gave rise to his claim against defendants. Even so, he may be eligible for an award of compensatory damages which so far as the law is concerned redresses him and places him in the position he was prior to sustaining the injury. The windfall he would receive in the form of punitive damages is bothersome to the principle of damages, because it is a response to the conduct of the defendants rather than any reaction to the loss suffered by plaintiff or any measurement of his worthiness for the award.

When such a windfall comes to a criminal as a result of his indulgence in serious criminal conduct, the result is intolerable and indeed shocks the conscience. If we find the law upholds such a result, the criminal would be permitted by operation of law to profit from his own crime.

Furthermore, if our civil courts are to sustain such a result, it would in principle interfere with the purposes and policies of the criminal law. This would certainly be ironic since punitive damages have been thought to assist and promote those purposes, at least so far as the conduct of the defendant is concerned.

We cannot in good conscience ignore the conduct of the plaintiff. He does not come into court with clean hands, and attempts to make a claim to punitive damages in part on his own criminal conduct. In such circumstances, to enrich him would be unjust, and compensatory damages in such a case itself would be a sufficient deterrent to the defendant or others who might intend to set such a device.

The criminal law can take whatever action is appropriate in such cases, but the civil law should not compound the breach of proper social conduct by rewarding the plaintiff for his crime. I conclude one engaged in a criminal activity is an unworthy object of largesse bestowed by punitive damages and hold the law does not support such a claim to enrichment in this case.

The admonitory function of the tort law is adequately served where the compensatory damages claimed are high and the granted award itself may act as a severe punishment and a deterrence. In such a case as we have here there is no need to hold out the prospect of punitive damages as an incentive to sue and rectify a minor physical damage such as a redress for lost dignity. Certainly this is not a case where defendants might profit in excess of the amount of reparation they may have to pay.

In a case of this kind there is no overwhelming social purpose to be achieved by punishing defendants beyond the compensatory sum claimed for damages.

Being convinced that there was reversible error in the court’s instructions, that the issue of intent in placing the spring gun was not clearly presented to the jury, and that the issue as to punitive damages should not have been presented to the jury, I would reverse and remand the matter for a new trial.

The majority seem to ignore the evident issue of punitive policy involved herein and uphold the punitive damage award on a mere technical rule of civil procedure.