GuyWithQuestions
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 451
I hear quite often people saying that if you use lethal force to defend yourself, you not only have to survive the actual attack and criminal charges, but also civil lawsuits. On one thread on THR, someone said that you shouldn't use hollow point bullets because although from a criminal court's point of view you should be good, from a civil liability point of view you could be in trouble (which I don't understand). So how does that work? I don't know if I've heard correctly, but I've heard that most people, including law students, don't understand how law suits actually work. I heard that you can't just sue someone and win because they did something morally wrong, caused you distress, or caused you a lot of damage or injury. I've heard that first you have to prove that they owed you a legal duty. If there's no legal duty then there can be no liability. Liability and legal duty are the flip sides of the same coin. Citizens can't sue the police for refusing to help them because LE's legal duty is to the government, not to individual citizens. If a store has a sign posted "We have the right to refuse service to anyone" you can't sue them if they don't sell you something and that hurts you somehow. Second, I've heard that you have to prove that they actually failed to fulfill their legal duty. Third, you need to prove that because of that failure to fulfill their legal duty, damages occurred (you sue to receive compensation). Fourth, you have to prove that the damages were actual and if so, to what extent the other party will have to compensate you. If someone runs into the back of your car and causes damages and injury, they owed you a legal duty not to follow too closely. You can show they failed to do that because the police cited the person for following too closely and it's obvious that they rear ended you from the pictures. There are actual damages because you have auto and medical bills because of the incident. Fourth, you can show just how much they should compensate you.
Can anyone verify if what I've heard about civil liability is correct?
If what I've heard is correct, how does this apply to civil liability law suits when someone shoots in self-defense? What legal duty does the plaintiff claim you failed to fulfill? Wrongful death? Personal injury? How do the courts determine you owed the plaintiff a legal duty in the first place and what the name of the duty is? Is there some secret book that they pull it out of? Let's say a relative wants to sue you for wrongful death of their precious serial killer. If in a criminal court they show that you were reasonably justified in using lethal force because you were using it to prevent the unlawful use of like force being used against yourself, how would the plaintiff make a reasonable case in a civil liability case? Sorry about any ignorance I may have, I'm just very curious and I'm sure others would benefit from this knowledge also.
Can anyone verify if what I've heard about civil liability is correct?
If what I've heard is correct, how does this apply to civil liability law suits when someone shoots in self-defense? What legal duty does the plaintiff claim you failed to fulfill? Wrongful death? Personal injury? How do the courts determine you owed the plaintiff a legal duty in the first place and what the name of the duty is? Is there some secret book that they pull it out of? Let's say a relative wants to sue you for wrongful death of their precious serial killer. If in a criminal court they show that you were reasonably justified in using lethal force because you were using it to prevent the unlawful use of like force being used against yourself, how would the plaintiff make a reasonable case in a civil liability case? Sorry about any ignorance I may have, I'm just very curious and I'm sure others would benefit from this knowledge also.