Harry owned an old and deteriorating farmhouse that was unoccupied, boarded up, and had NO TRESPASS.

Harry owned an old and deteriorating farmhouse that was unoccupied, boarded up, and had NO TRESPASS signs around it. Harry was very upset with the constant burglaries and break-ins and to stop the vandalism mounted a spring-loaded shotgun in the farmhouse to fire when the door was opened. The gun was aimed to shoot an intruder’s legs so as not to cause a mortal injury. Several weeks later, Kasey broke into the farmhouse with the intent of stealing some personal property in the house. Kasey tripped the trigger mechanism and the shotgun fired into his leg causing severe injuries. Kasey sued Harry. Should he win? If so, on what theory? See Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971)