Self Defense

Question 1

Courvoisier v. Raymond

Answer 1

i. Facts
1) D is a merchant who lives above his store, he was awoken by people trying to break in, they got in and he drove them out to the street with his gun. They then verbally and physically accosted him. A policy office seeing it all happened approached with his deputies and in the moment of action, the P not being able to see well shot and injured the officer (P)
ii. Issue:
1) Was the P assaulting the store owner at the time the store owner shot the P?
2) If not was there sufficient evidence of justification for the consideration of the Jury?
iii. Holding
1) Judgement for the P is reversed at the appellate court trial, because of error in instructions to the jury
a) Jury was unable to give proper consideration of justification to the D’s claims
iv. Notes
1) Self defense is a justified defense of an intentional tort provided the actor was being assaulted and there is sufficient evidence the actors actions were justified
2) What kind of situational evidence is needed for justification
a) Other shop owner robbed recently
b) Cannot see the attackers very well, and the police officer looked like he could be one of them
3) Does the P have a duty to retreat? Well now it depends on the state and current stand your ground laws.
4) You can exert as much action as needed to stop the inevitable action, but not more,
Mountain biker is going to hit you on the trail after he loses control, you can hit him to knock him out of the way, but you do not have the right to shoot him to stop it

Question 2

Morris v. Platt

Answer 2

i. Holding
1) The accident harming of an innocent bystander by force reasonably intended in self defenst to repel an attack by a third party is not actionable
a) SS 75
a) D is liable to the innocent party only if the actor realizes or should realize that his act creates an unreasonable risk of causing harm (they can sue you for NEG)
There is not an intentional tort for injury resulting to a 3rd party in self defense of an oncoming attack, provided the defender did not realized harm could happen, or he should have known it could.

Question 3

Boston v. Muncy

Answer 3

i. Facts
1) D confronted P in a bar about a promise, P denied making such a promise (although contested in evidence, attempted to hit him) the D then retaliates with force and injurs the P to the point he lost the use of one of his eyes. The instructions to the jury are what is in question here. They were not told to consider the self-defense
ii. Issue
1) Was the jury instruction to limit the D’s self defense claim to “only if he felt he was in danger” an error of the actual law?
iii. Holding
1) The jury instruction was indeed prejudice and too narrowly limited his defense. His belief as to whether or not he would suffer injury is irrelevant, as long as he was being assaulted, he had the right to self defense.
iv. Notes
1) Rule
If a person is assaulted by another without provocation may use sufficient force to repel the attack without being guilty of assault himself, even though he may not believe himself to be in physical danger.