TN:What's the law that says u can't be sued in civil court after justified shooting?

[jaxonbrown]

What is the name of your state? Tennessee

I just completed a concealed handgun carry class in Memphis and near the end the instructor said, in Tennessee, if it is determined that you have lawfully and justifiable shot someone, you cannot be sued in civil court for damages.

I want to specifically read and make a copy of that law. I haven't had any luck with online law directories. I'm not sure what to look for. "No civil lawsuit after justified shooting" doesn't turn up the letter of the law that I want to read.

Any guidance would be helpful.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

There is none. Simply because there wan't enough evidence to convict under the stautes doesn't mean there isn't clear and convincing evidence for a finding under civil law.

 

[jaxonbrown]

Well, Massachusetts does:

G.L.c. 231, § 85U. Death or injury to unlawful dwelling occupants; liability of lawful occupants.

Section 85U. No person who is a lawful occupant of a dwelling shall be liable in an action for damages for death or injuries to an unlawful occupant of said dwelling resulting from the acts of said lawful occupant; provided, however, that said lawful occupant was in the dwelling at the time of the occurrence and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said lawful dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said lawful occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall not be a duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.


Someone else found the above section. He's still looking for TN language on the subject and having no luck. I need to find the law for TN. Anyone here a hotshot lawyer? prove it.

 

[badapple40]

The issue Belize isn't a burden of proof issue. He said: "determined that you have lawfully and justifiable shot someone," which is different than "not guilty in a criminal setting." I view that as sucessfully raising a justification defense (e.g. self-defense, defense of others, etc.)

Insofar as I am aware, it doesn't mean you won't get sued, but justification/self-defense is as much a defense in the area of torts as it is in the area of criminal law.

It doesn't mean that you will be free from suit -- anyone can sue anyone. But if you are justified, and its clear, then it is as much a defense to a criminal action as it is to a lawsuit.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Someone else found the above section. He's still looking for TN language on the subject and having no luck. I need to find the law for TN. Anyone here a hotshot lawyer? prove it.

Well duh, ever think WHY you can't find the language?

And BadApple, justification in a criminal case has little to do with liability in a civil suit. Imagine the following:

You and your buddy go out 4-wheeling. You are having a great time but come upon a very steep hill. Stopping at the top of the hill to decide if the two of you should go down, you get off your 4-wheeler and push your friend down the hill, causing his 4-wheeler to careen out of control.

You laugh because you think it's funny but your friend, injured and angry, takes a knife from his boot and comes towards you.

Are you, at this point, justified in shooting and killing him? Yes.
Are you free from any civil penalties. VERY doubtful.

 

[badapple40]

Well duh, ever think WHY you can't find the language?

And BadApple, justification in a criminal case has little to do with liability in a civil suit. Imagine the following:

You and your buddy go out 4-wheeling. You are having a great time but come upon a very steep hill. Stopping at the top of the hill to decide if the two of you should go down, you get off your 4-wheeler and push your friend down the hill, causing his 4-wheeler to careen out of control.

You laugh because you think it's funny but your friend, injured and angry, takes a knife from his boot and comes towards you.

Are you, at this point, justified in shooting and killing him? Yes.
Are you free from any civil penalties. VERY doubtful.

Actually, I'm not certain self-defense comes into play, because in such an instance, the person being attacked caused the affray. Moreover, there is probably a duty to retreat in such an instance. Furthermore, I'd think, in the hypothetical you present above, there would be a defense as to the shooting, but not as to the pushing down the hill (a separate and distince assault and battery). I'm thinking more like:

Guy is robbing a store, customer intervenes to prevent armed robbery/threat to clerk by shooting the perp.

In such an instance, justification would provide a defense in both a criminal action and a civil action.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Which does not preclude a civil action.

You are telling me that just because the shooting was considered justified by a criminal court there can't be a civil action and that is patently false.

 

[badapple40]

No, I specifically said there can be a civil suit, but I am also saying that the same defense in the criminal case of justification is also a defense in the civil case, and that, it stands to reason, if the defense is sucessful in the criminal case, it is also likely to be sucessful in the civil case as well, notwithstanding the "great unknown" which is the mindset of any given jury.